Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Resident Diplomats

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the value of locally resident diplomatic representation.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Our diplomatic representatives provide access and influence in order to further the United Kingdom's interests in the political, commercial, economic and other fields. They enhance the security and prosperity of this country and provide a wide-ranging service to British citizens abroad.

Mr. Arnold: Following the successful development of co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in supporting British exporters, would not it be extremely unfortunate and counter-productive to reduce the number of our missions abroad, particularly when we are having to put such effort into increasing British exports?

Mr. Hurd: It is increasingly clear to those who follow these matters that diplomacy, the work that I have just described, and trade promotion are intertwined and that, in more and more of our markets, Governments set the rules and, in many cases, award the contracts, so orders are not obtained without knowing the politics and the politicians—and that is not achieved with a fax machine.

Mr. Hain: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that British businesses and expatriates in Nigeria need the protection of the Nigerian high commission under the excellent leadership of Sir Christopher MacRae? I hope that that praise will not prejudice Sir Christopher's career prospects. One of the commission's officials accompanied four Members of Parliament to observe the presidential elections on Saturday, the results of which I hope will be upheld as they were, by and large, free and fair.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend— [Interruption.]—the hon. Gentleman. He was so polite that my tongue slipped. That exercise went well and I am glad that the high commission was able to give some help. Nigeria will remain a huge market. It illustrates the point that I have just made. During the past year, British exports have increased by 22 per cent. and I hope that a smooth movement back to civilian rule will help them, too.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that probably the most important diplomatic representatives that Britain has abroad at this difficult time in international affairs is our permanent representative at the United Nations? Will he take this opportunity to pay tribute to Sir David Hannay for the work that he does and confirm that it is extremely important that the United Kingdom retains its seat as a permanent member of the Security Council?

Mr. Hurd: That is our intention. Sir David Hannay sets a vigorous lead in all that he does at the United Nations.

Mr. Rogers: Is not the Secretary of State being a little economical with the facts in his answer? Is not it true that not only are the number of missions being cut but the Treasury has instructed the Foreign Office to cut the number of staff in embassies? In some important embassies —for instance, in north America—the number of staff dealing with trade and exports is being cut, while staff who deal with media and presentation are being retained. Is not that another example of the Government's policy of being all presentation and no substance?

Mr. Hurd: I have had no instructions from the Treasury in these matters. We are just entering discussions on the public expenditure round. We have had to open posts in many of the 20 new countries that have come into being in the past two or three years and that has meant retrenching in other places. This is a matter of setting priorities.

Mr. Wilkinson: I accept that it is necessary to have as comprehensive a representation around the world as possible, for the excellent growth reasons which were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and reinforced by my right hon. Friend's answer. Does not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it is better to concentrate rather more on farther-flung places than on the EEC? In that context, will he reconsider the withdrawal of British defence attachées from Quito and Manila who play an important role in addition to the commercially and locally recruited personnel?

Mr. Hurd: Defence attaches are not a matter for me, but we do review the size of staff at bigger embassies. In the past few years, we have cut the size of staff by seven in Paris, six in Bonn and 17 in Washington. Diplomacy inside the Community is crucial. For example, our representatives in Community posts are currently preparing for the Copenhagen summit—warding off developments that we would not like and encouraging developments that we do like. That exercise is important for the summit's success.

East Timor

Mr. Kilfoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to protect human rights in East Timor.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): Together with our European Community partners and bilaterally, we maintain a regular dialogue on human rights with the Indonesian authorities and raise particular issues— including East Timor—with them as necessary. European Community partners co-sponsored a resolution on East Timor at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva earlier this year.

Mr. Kilfoyle: Fine words, but since the invasion and occupation of East Timor in 1979, one in three of its population has died and Indonesia has been in breach of two Security Council resolutions and eight General Assembly resolutions. Is not it wholly unacceptable for the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence to visit Indonesia and to give both political and material support to a regime whose record is on a par with that of Pol Pot in Cambodia?

Mr. Goodlad: Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has visited East Timor. Maintaining good relations with Indonesia, which is the chairman of the non-aligned movement and an important member of the Association of South-East Asian Nations, is much the best way of increasing its observance of human rights.

Mr. Nicholls: Whatever may have been Indonesia's human rights record over the years, it has improved a great deal—but instead of the regime being given credit for that, wildly exaggerated attacks are made by Opposition Members. Instead of indulging in the wild exaggeration that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), would not the interests of the people of Indonesia and of this country be better served if the regime were given credit for the real steps that it is taking to improve the situation?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend makes some extremely valid points. As I said, our best chance of helping to improve human rights in Indonesia and for many in East Timor is through the processes that we undertake.

Angola

Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held in the Foreign Affairs Council concerning Angola.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): Angola was discussed at the Development Council on 25 May.

Mr. Enright: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that more than 1 million Angolans have been displaced as a result of the war in that country and that the Angolan Government have bent over backwards to bring Dr. Savimbi into the Government, yet he continues to terrorise Angola in the way that the former Yugoslavia is being terrorised. Will the Minister, with all possible haste and urgency, stress on the Council the need for a course of immediate action to assist the Angolan Government—possibly involving the four other Lusophone countries?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning UN1TA's action in rejecting the result of the election last September, which was judged by the United Nations special representative, Miss Margaret Anstee, as being generally free and fair. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the European Council will discuss at next week's meeting in Copenhagen the problems of Angola, which are firmly on the agenda.

Mr. Grocott: Will the Minister be a little forthcoming? Since last year's elections, upwards of 20,000 people have been killed and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) said, more than 1 million have lost their homes. The situation in Angola poses a real threat to the international community as well as being a tragedy for Angola's people. Does the Minister acknowledge that UNITA is in breach of Security Council resolution 785, which clearly states that any party that fails to abide by the peace agreement will be rejected and isolated by the international community? What steps is he taking through the international community to ensure that UNITA is diplomatically and militarily isolated?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is right. We must all put pressure on UNITA, and this afternoon the House is providing the opportunity to do precisely that. The fact remains, however, that a resolution of the problems in Angola must involve a dialogue between UNITA and the Angolan Government. There is no other way in which peace can be brought to end the dreadful problem.

Exports Promotion

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how his Department contributes to promotion of British exports overseas.

Mr. Goodlad: The overseas trade services jointly provided by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department of Trade and Industry offer a comprehensive range of expert advice and support to British exporters through commercial sections in 196 posts world wide.

Mr. Thompson: Bearing in mind the Government's declared support for a major export drive, which must be sustained to ensure continuing recovery, and the apparent lack of interest shown in the subject by the Opposition —when only one of their members was able to attend a full-scale debate on the subject on 21 May—will my right hon. Friend assure the House that sufficient priority, expertise and resources will be given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to posts overseas to meet the export challenge?

Mr. Goodlad: British exporters have told us unequivocally, and in public, that they value highly the commercial work which is undertaken by the diplomatic service and to which my hon. Friend alludes so graphically and accurately. That is, of course, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's largest single activity overseas. It is our aim to ensure that the service continues to have the resources necessary to enable heads of mission and their staff to maintain their commercially proactive role and to meet the demands made on them by exporters, directly and via the enhanced overseas trade services in this country.

Rev. Martin Smyth: How many embassies use their own property to entertain or to present exhibitions of British manufacturing and exporters' interests, as happened quite successfully a few years ago in Paris?

Mr. Goodlad: I think that practically all of them carry out those functions. The British embassy in Paris is using


its premises to launch the new Rover model this year. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is an extremely important use for our overseas estate.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Would my right hon. Friend be willing to carry out a special inquiry into the failure of his Department and other agencies to match exports to the European Community with imports? Will he bear it very much in mind that this month we have broken the barrier of the £1 billion deficit since our membership? Is not that a chronic failure which is doing great damage to the l3ritish economy and to jobs and prosperity?

Mr. Goodlad: The export services to which I referred have made an enormous contribution to ensuring that our exports to the European Community have been as healthy as they have.

Yugoslavia

Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the implementation of Security Council resolution 808 on a war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Hurd: United Nations Security Council resolution 827, which was adopted unanimously on 25 May, gave effect to the earlier decision in the resolution referred to in the question—808—to establish an international tribunal for former Yugoslavia. The latest resolution asks the Secretary-General to make practical arrangements for the effective functioning of the tribunal as soon as possible. We support that.

Mr. Hutton: What further practical measures will the Government take to support the work of the war crimes tribunal? In particular, might any person convicted of war crimes by the tribunal eventually be detained in British gaols? Will the right hon Gentleman also confirm that the jurisdiction of the war crimes tribunal will apply to everyone within the territories of the former Yugoslavia, including the military and civilian leaders of all the warring groups in that country?

Mr. Hurd: The answer to the last question is yes, and the answer to the second question about British prisons is that I do not believe that we are likely to make such an offer. However, we shall support the Secretary-General in establishing the three chambers of the tribunal and working out where they should sit, which I hope and think will be in The Hague. We shall also give him general support.

Mr. William Powell: I thank my right hon. Friend for the support that the British Government have given to resolution 827 and to the measures that preceded it, which have led to the establishment of the tribunal. Is he aware that the nature of the evidence that could be presented against any potential defendant is likely to be driven by witnesses rather than by a paper chase through the archives and that it is therefore essential for a special prosecutor to be established as quickly as possible, so that the evidence that could be presented to a court is not lost through further delay? Will my right hon. Friend support the Secretary-General if he chooses to accept the advice given to him by nearly every member of the United Nations and recommends Professor Cherif Bassiouni as

the special prosecutor? My right hon. Friend will recall that I took Professor Bassiouni to see my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State at the Foreign Office a fortnight ago.

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his expert interest in the matter. I will pursue his point about the individual, and I agree that it is necessary to establish a special prosecutor as soon as possible. Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend certainly knows, there is already a commission of experts siting evidence, and that will continue at least until a special prosecutor is established.

Mr. Winnick: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that if, despite what he has told the House, those who have been responsible for the terrible crimes against humanity in former Yugoslavia are not brought to justice, that will encourage the continuation of such crimes and atrocities time and again? Does he also accept that the framework established at Nuremburg after the second world war is a good framework within which to try people held responsible for such crimes against humanity?

Mr. Hurd: We now have a new framework, and it is for the Secretary-General to fill in the details. That will not be easy for him, and the House should not underestimate the difficulties, but the reason for the exercise is that which the hon. Gentleman stated in the first part of his question.

Middle East

Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the search for a peace settlement in the middle east.

Mr. Hurd: Another round of bilateral negotiations between the parties is beginning in Washington this week. There were some encouraging signs at the end of the last round in May that the Israelis and Palestinians were beginning to discuss detail and substance. We continue to urge all parties to work for further progress.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Arab states are holding up the search for peace by refusing to accede to his request at the Group of Seven conference in London that they stop the iniquitous Arab trade boycott? As the Government's attitude was that if there were a consensus for Community legislation, we should not oppose that and, as France, Holland and Germany have now initiated legislation against the boycott, will my right hon. Friend kindly consider taking more active steps to stop companies such as ICI cravenly obeying the boycott?

Mr. Hurd: I do not think that the experience of national legislation in other countries suggests that it has a powerful effect. It is largely declaratory and is difficult to enforce, so our course is the right one. Rather than legislating in this country, we seek to urge the Arabs to wind up the boycott. There has been some progress in the Gulf countries in that respect, as my hon. Friend knows —not enough progress, but the Kuwaitis, for example, have reportedly announced the abandonment of the application of the boycott to third countries. We will pursue the matter. The boycott is not the only obstacle to peace, but it is one.

Mr. Ernie Ross: I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that the greatest obstacle to peace at the moment is the weight of the occupation on the Palestinian population now locked up in Gaza and the west bank as a result of decisions by the Israeli Government. It does not really help to talk about a trade boycott when the producers in Gaza and the west bank cannot sell what they produce in their factories or on their land. If the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) really wanted to help, he would urge that those barriers, and some of the other repressive measures currently "enjoyed" by—or rather, pressed on—the Palestinians, be lifted. That would be a significant boost to the peace talks.

Mr. Hurd: I sometimes think that it would be an excellent thing if people such as the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), who favour the Palestinian cause, would occasionally condemn the boycott, and people such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, who usually put questions from the other point of view, would urge the Israelis to do something to ease the burdens of the occupation. If the partisans—or rather, as that is a pejorative word, the advocates—of each cause occasionally used their influence and talents to urge better action on those whom they generally support, we might make more progress. Both those steps are needed.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that two of the barriers to peace in the middle east are the refusal of Arab states to recognise Israel and the refusal of the Arab captors to release Israeli hostages who have been held for many years, such as Ron Arad?

Mr. Hurd: That is another fair point, but it needs to be balanced by the handling of the deportee question by the Israeli Government. The Arab countries that are still technically at war with Israel are not far off negotiating a change, but I doubt whether they will conclude peace with Israel until there is a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. That is the most difficult aspect of those negotiations, but it can be helped by confidence-building measures, such as an end to the Arab boycott and the easing of the conditions of occupation.

Dr. John Cunningham: The Foreign Secretary is right to urge people to play the role of forming a bridge in the difficult negotiations for peace in the middle east, Israel and the occupied territories. I certainly support him in that appeal. Since Britain has a somewhat peripheral role in those matters, may I urge the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear to the United States of America that it, too, should be evenhanded in the conduct of the current peace talks in Washington? Is not it rather depressing that the talks have recommenced on the basis of bilateral discussions rather than all the parties being around the table together? Has the right hon. Gentleman received any approaches from the Israeli Government or the Palestinians, either directly or through the European Community, for Europe to play a part in the economic reconstruction and rehabilitation of the occupied territories; if so, what response has been made? If the right hon. Gentleman has had such an approach, will he seek an initiative of that nature?

Mr. Hurd: We take a part, through the Community, in the multilateral side of the negotiations, which is precisely concerned with matters such as water and economic development.
On the right hon. Gentleman's first point, there have to be bilateral negotiations between Arab countries and Israel, between Palestine and Israel and so forth. We had a good run through the subject with the American Secretary of State in Luxembourg last week and I believe that the United States Administration are pressing ahead with the negotiations in the right way.

Mr. Clappison: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in his insistence on the need for evenhandedness, but does he agree that evenhandedness has not been achieved under the Arab boycott, because at the 1991 conference the issue of the boycott was linked to the issue of Israel freezing settlements? Although Israel has made progress on that, substantial equivalent progress has not been made on the Arab side.

Mr. Hurd: There has been progress in ending settlements. My hon. Friend chose his word rightly—it is progress, not an end to the building of settlements, which are still going up in some places. We believe that that should be ended and the occupation eased. Equally, we shall continue to press hard for an ending of the Arab boycott.

Cuba

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about British relations with Cuba.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): Relations with Cuba are correct.

Mr. Pickthall: The Under-Secretary of State was good enough to give me an encouraging answer to a written question on the subject on 27 April, at column 363, in which he said that the American boycott of trade with Cuba would not have any practical effect on British emergency aid to Cuba. Will the Government take that a step further? They will know that the combination of severe storms and the American blockade is causing severe distress in Cuba. They may not know that Cuban schools and colleges are pleading with Britain for books in English and for other educational aids. Will the Government use their good offices to pressurise the American Government to lift what the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir 1. Lawrence) called an iniquitous trade boycott?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We gave some emergency aid to Cuba earlier this year following the storms and the delivery of that aid was not hindered in any practical way by the United States embargo. The Cuban economy is on the verge of ruin not because of the American embargo but because of 30 years of imposed state communism.

Mr. Oppenheim: My hon. Friend must accept that that is not good enough. The Government must strive to establish and maintain more open and fruitful relations with countries such as Cuba and North Korea, so that more people may be made aware of the glowing achievements of those remaining—although admittedly beleaguered—beacons of socialism and central planning. Would not that at least make more people aware that, although free market systems may not be perfect, they are a hell of a lot less imperfect than the central planning and socialism in countries such as Cuba?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Cuba provides a laboratory example of a socialist state gone wrong. We maintain diplomatic and trading links with Cuba, but our relations can improve only if the Cubans hold free and fair elections and respect human rights.

Western Sahara

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the UN concerning the preparations for a referendum on the future of Western Sahara.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We maintain regular contact with the United Nations Secretary-General through our permanent representative concerning the implementation of the UN settlement plan.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that, for a long time, the Sahrawi people have been denied the right to live peacefully on their own land? Methods employed by the Moroccan Government in attempting to impose an electorate in advance of a UN-sponsored referendum would guarantee an outcome favourable to King Hassan. Is not it time for this country and others to stand up in support of UN resolutions 658 and 690 to ensure that the Sahrawi people get a free and unfettered voice in a referendum and not one dominated by the Moroccan military? Failure to do so will lead to a reopening of hostilities, a terrible loss of life and a further blow to the prestige of the UN. Will the Government act to ensure that those people have a free voice?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We very much wish to see the referendum take place. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the UN Secretary-General has just visited Morocco and Western Sahara and we are awaiting his report which is expected in the next few weeks. We believe that he will address the resolution of some of the problems of representation in the referendum. I expect that the Government will he supporting the Secretary-General when we have read the terms of his report.

Sir David Steel: Does the Minister agree that there have at least been some tentative signs of compromise between the Polisario and the Moroccan Government? Should not we, as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, encourage that and, for that reason, will the Foreign Office lift the ban on Ministers meeting the Polisario? We were late to do so in the cases of the African National Congress and the Palestine Liberation Organisation—let us not be too late again.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The way forward is to support the Secretary-General. The Polisario and the Moroccan representative will be in Vienna during the world human rights conference and will be meeting the Secretary-General. Our best contact with the Polisario is in that way rather than by ministerial contact, because we shall be supporting the Secretary-General's recommendations.

Mr. Gill: Why are the Government in favour of a referendum in Africa but not in Great Britain?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend knows full well that the situation in the Western Sahara is compeletely

different. It involves the resolution of an ancient problem in which we wish to see the representation of people who have no Parliament.

Kashmir

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had about the situation in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Indian Government on the present position in Kashmir; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs most recently discussed Kashmir with the Indian Vice-President on 25 May during his visit to London.

Mr. Canavan: More than 20,000 Kashmiris have been killed and thousands more imprisoned and tortured by Indian forces over the past three years. Will the Government use their influence, particularly through the Commonwealth and the United Nations, to try to get the Indian and Pakistani Governments to reach an agreement whereby more respect is given to the human rights of the people of Kashmir? That agreement could also give the Kashmiri people the right to self-determination, leading possibly to the establishment of an independent state of Kashmir if that is what the people want.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can certainly agree that the resolution of that ancient and difficult problem must require dialogue between India and the Pakistan Government—that we urge. We wish to be as helpful as we can. We have certainly made it absolutely clear to the Indians that we are concerned about human rights. In fact, the Indians have initiated legislation to set up an independent human rights commission. But the way forward must be by dialogue between the two factions.

Mr. Cox: The Minister referred to a meeting. What was the response of the Indian Minister to allowing an all-party group of hon. Members to visit the occupied area of Kashmir? In view of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr. Cunningham), will the Minister give an indication of what progress the Prime Minister is making? In a letter to me in April, he clearly indicated that he would welcome Kashmir being on the agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in Cyprus later this year, because Pakistan and India would be at that conference.

Mr. Lennox Boyd: As for visiting Kashmir, the hon. Gentleman must take up his case with the Indian high commissioner. For my part, I believe that it is helpful that there should be visits to that part of the world. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised the problems of Kashmir with the Indian Prime Minister in January and with the Indian Vice-President when he visited Britain in May. My right hon. Friend made his views quite clear on both occasions and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I do so as well.

Sir John Wheeler: My hon. Friend will know that there is great concern among hon. Members about human rights in Indian-held Kashmir. Will he confirm that the solution


to that long-standing problem must arise from negotiations between the two countries concerned, India and Pakistan, under the Simla agreement? Will he continue to bring to the attention of those countries, in particular India, our concern about human rights and the fact that the United Kingdom will be available to help both countries should they so wish such assistance?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Should both countries seek our support, we will always be willing and ready to give it. An important point that should be made when discussing the human rights problem in Kashmir is that the criticism that is expressed in the House is often mirrored—indeed initiated—by criticism in the Indian Parliament, from the Indian press and, of course, from Indian human rights organisations, all of which express their concern as well.

Mr. Waller: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Simla agreement which India and Pakistan signed involves a commitment to start talking about Kashmir, which unfortunately at present the Indian Government appear to be unwilling to commit themselves to doing? Will my hon. Friend use every opportunity to reiterate to the Indian Government that it is unreasonable to exclude from Jammu and Kashmir independent observers such as British Members of Parliament and representatives of Amnesty International and that, short of such acceptance of independent visitors, India's reputation for human rights must be subject to the deepest scrutiny?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My hon. Friend has expressed his opinion. Obviously, contact between the Indian Prime Minister and the Pakistan Prime Minister is highly desirable. They last met at the non-aligned summit in Dhaka in April this year and I hope that they will have future meetings.

Mr. Madden: Will the Minister press the Indian Government to publish the names of the 52,000 people held in India, including Kashmir, without trial? Will he also advise his counterparts at the Home Office that, in view of India's appalling human rights record and the numbers held in detention without trial, now is not the time to invite the British House of Commons to pass orders approving the extradition treaty between Britain and India?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should not have proper arrangements for the extradition of terrorist offenders. There will be the usual safeguards in the extradition treaty provisions which are presented to the House of Commons and the House of Lords. The person in question will have to be brought before Bow Street magistrates court. The court must be satisfied that he will not be prejudiced because of his political opinions. The Home Secretary makes the final decision, which is subject to judicial review. Therefore, there is a great deal of protection for anyone who is brought into the proceedings.

Bosnia

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with Mr. Slobodan Milosevic regarding Bosnia.

Mr. Hurd: I have had no discussion with President Milosevic on Bosnia since the London conference in August 1992. However, we ensure that he is kept fully abreast of our views.

Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the vicious and brutal attack ordered by Mr. Milosevic on the Serbian opposition leader, Mr. Vuk Draskovic, during the anti-Government demonstrations in Belgrade? Is he aware that there is serious concern about the health of Mr. Draskovic, who is now in prison? He has suffered a broken jaw and a broken arm and has serious head injuries and he can neither walk nor speak. I urge my right hon. Friend to seek his immediate release. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is another example of the loathsome character of Mr. Milosevic, who seeks to promote ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, and another example of a fascist dictator?

Mr. Hurd: The Prime Minister, responding to the sort of anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend, sent a strong message to President Milosevic impressing on him the need for the release of Mr. Draskovic and his wife and for them to be given full access to visitors and medical treatment in the meantime. My hon. Friend is right—this is a cruel step backwards in the wrong direction so far as Serbia is concerned.

Mr. Faulds: In any future conversations with this leading war criminal Milosevic, what will the right hon. Gentleman suggest as to the practicality of the restoration of the territorial integrity of Bosnia, which has clearly been abandoned in the Washington agreement to which he shamefully put his name and that of this country?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman cannot have read the agreement as it specifically refers to the need for Serb withdrawal from the territories that they have seized.

Sir Anthony Durant: In view of the increasingly dangerous situation in Bosnia, will my right hon. Friend ensure that British troops are withdrawn if circumstances become so impossible that they are unable to carry on with their humanitarian aid?

Mr. Hurd: Yes. At the moment, our troops, as well as French, Spanish and other troops in different parts of Bosnia, are helping to keep people alive in two ways: by escorting convoys which continue to deliver supplies and, by their presence, averting the sort of massacre that would probably follow if they were withdrawn. So long as that is true and there is no undue risk to them, they should stay. But my hon. Friend is right—if the situation deteriorated further to the point at which we and others felt that the risk had become undue, they would have to be withdrawn. The steps that the Ministry of Defence announced last week to the House were formulated in that context.

Dr. John Cunningham: Is not the Washington agreement on Bosnia deeply flawed? Did not it give, intentionally or otherwise, a clear signal to the Serbs that their aggression would be rewarded with extra territory? Has not President Milosevic been emboldened by continuing weakness on the part of the European Community and did not that result in the imprisonment and torture of Mr. Draskovic and his wife Danica? Is not it time for the European Community and our other allies to say once and for all that we will take whatever action is


required to ensure that the decisions of the Security Council of the United Nations and the Community are upheld in Bosnia?

Mr. Hurd: The advice "Something must be done" is the least useful that can be given in these circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman paraphrased that advice and made it a bit longer. but that is really what he said. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) alleged that the Washington statement accepted Serb aggression. I pointed out that that was not so. The pressures for reversing that aggression are political, economic and financial. Those who believe that it would be right to send our troops and other troops to enforce a military solution should say so, not take refuge in the sort of rhetoric which is an obstacle to reality.

NATO Information Budget

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current United Kingdom contribution to the NATO information budget; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The information budget of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for this year amounts to about £4 million, of which the United Kingdom contributes 18 per cent.—currently about £750,000.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is clear that, despite the ending of the cold war, NATO has a continuing, perhaps increasing, role? What is being done to explain that role more widely?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree that NATO is a successful collective security pact and we shall not throw it away in what is still a dangerous world. Its role is changing following the end of the cold war. It is developing a new role and it is important that it should explain that role to the public, not just in this country, but in the former Warsaw pact countries, which are keen that the stability that we have enjoyed in western Europe under NATO should be extended to them.

Mr. Cryer: Was not NATO established because of an alleged threat from the east, led by the Soviet Union? Now that that threat has disappeared, even among Tory imaginations, is not it time that we abandoned the massive expenditure on NATO and worked towards its break-up to equate with the ending of the Warsaw pact? Surely that would be a step towards peace. To maintain NATO on the ridiculous presumption that there is some danger somewhere is a waste of money and the maintenance of a useless and outdated empire.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That threat to western Europe was real, even if the dinosaurs on the Labour Benches never recognised it. As I said in my first response, NATO's role is changing and there are opportunities for NATO troops to help with peacekeeping operations. We have seen NATO planes enforcing the no-fly zone in Bosnia. Just because the cold war has ended does not mean that NATO's role is less important.

Subsidiarity

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to consider legislation passed since 1986 for possible

amendment or repeal on the grounds of subsidiarity and unsuitability for the United Kingdom, after the Brussels European Council of December 1993.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We are discussing with the Commission and member states action to ensure that subsidiarity is made to work in practice and that legislation is amended or repealed where necessary. The Commission has been instructed to present the outcome of its review on the subject at Brussels in December.

Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend undertake to double and redouble his efforts to apply subsidiarity not only prospectively but retrospectively after the Brussels summit? If he finds difficulty in applying the principle retrospectively because there is no mechanism to do so, will my hon. Friend work with his European colleagues to try to find such a mechanism?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As a matter of law, the subsidiarity clause in the Maastricht treaty is not retrospective—the House respects that principle in its own legislation. But the Edinburgh Council agreed that the Commission should examine existing legislation with a view to amending or repealing it if it conflicted with the principle of subsidiarity or minimum interference, as it should perhaps be called. As a Government, we are looking at the European statute book with the same end in mind.

Mr. Barnes: If the Government like what the European Community is doing they say that it is in line with the principle of subsidiarity. If they dislike what is being done they claim that it contravenes the principle of subsidiarity and that matters should be determined at national level. Therefore, the principle means anything that anybody wants it to. Would not it be better to have greater control over the activities of the Council of Ministers, which is supposed to decide whether subsidiary operates? It would help the House if the voting records of the Council of Ministers were systematically printed in Hansard when reports are made of Council meetings. In response to me, the Prime Minister said that that would be done, but it is not being done. Can we ensure that all Departments act on that issue in future? In fact, there are never any votes taken in Council meetings because, even when matters are to be decided by qualified majority voting, they are always passed on the nod.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The principle of subsidiarity applies to all the institutions of the EC—not just to the Commission and the Parliament, but to the Council of Ministers. Under Maastricht, it will be a legally binding principle, ultimately 'enforceable at law. But in order to make it a binding principle we first need to ratify the treaty. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would assist us with that process.

Mr. Dykes: Is my hon. Friend aware that we welcome his cautious approach as outlined in response to the original question? As the 1986 legislation was mostly to do with the implementation of the single market, based on majority voting, and pursued for the most part by this Government, the question of subsidiarity did not arise as much as people might now think. Does he agree that the amount of legislation coming from the Commission is in any case much less than hitherto?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Even before the treaty has been ratified the Commission is respecting the principle of subsidiarity. That has led to a noticeable reduction in the number of instruments that it proposes. But we are also anxious to look back at existing legislation because, despite what my hon. Friend says, there have been some breaches of the principle in that legislation and we wish to amend or appeal it as appropriate.

Mr. George Robertson: May I take this opportunity of welcoming the new Minister to the Dispatch Box? He is the 24th Foreign Office Minister whom I have sat opposite, so I advise him not to get too comfortable or he will go the same way as the rest of them did.
Does not the distinct smell of deceit and hypocrisy come from the Government when they talk about subsidiarity, openness and transparency? What they champion is usually the precise opposite of what they practise. For instance, why, last week, did the new Minister go along with the deliberate decision by the Council of Ministers not to publish voting figures for Council meetings? That was not only in breach of what my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) was told in a parliamentary answer, but in direct breach of what the Danish people were told. This new Minister actually proposed that the European ombudsman should not have access to correspondence between the Council of Ministers and the European Commission, thereby undermining the principle of openness.
Is not it a fact that the Minister, who was the Deputy Chief Whip, is taking into Europe the same old bad habits of that secret society, the Tory Whips Office, when what the people of Europe want is an open, accountable Community?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind welcome. I was indeed privileged to be in the Whips Office for the past year, where I tried to rescue the Maastricht treaty from the political manoeuvrings of the hon. Gentleman—culminating in that heroic abstention on Third Reading.
I entirely reject the idea that the Government take the view that proceedings should be anything less than open and helpful. The hon. Gentleman entirely misunderstands what happened last week in Luxembourg. We said, and we received support from all other member states, that the powers of the future European ombudsman should, in this respect, be the same as those of our own ombudsman—powers which work well in respect of access to secret and confidential documents.
It was a matter of great regret that the European Parliament used that excuse not to agree to extend the subsidiarity principle to its own proceedings.

Macedonia

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the United Kingdom and the republic of Macedonia.

Mr. Hurd: We gave full support to the admission of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia to the United Nations on 8 April, thereby implicitly recognising the country as an independent foreign state. We now have a

British presence in Skopje. I visited the country on 4 June and held talks with President Gligorov and acting Foreign Minister Crvenkovski.

Mr. Lidington: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he join me in welcoming the reported decision by the United States to deploy American troops on the frontiers between Macedonia and her neighbours to try to prevent border incursions? Does he agree that it might be a good idea if one or two European countries that have declined to contribute their troops to the humanitarian effort in Bosnia and have instead chosen to carp from the sidelines considered following that American example?

Mr. Hurd: The Americans were following the European example in this respect. A Nordic battalion—Swedes, Norwegians and, I think, Finns and Danes—is already established in Macedonia. I hope that the mandates of both the Scandinavians and the Americans now joining can be interpreted or enlarged in such a way that they will be able to help the Macedonians to enforce sanctions. There is no doubt that the main breach of sanctions is now taking place through Macedonia. For the reasons that have already been discussed, it is extremely important that the economic and financial pressures on Serbia should be made effective.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Foreign Secretary, in his discussions with all the people concerned with these matters, remind them that they had better not take a blind bit of notice of what the Liberal Democrats and their leader say on the subject? Three months ago the leader of the Liberal Democrats wanted to bomb the hell out of Serbia and to send in more troops, yet, to a thin House last Friday morning, he said that the troops should be pulled out.

Mr. Hurd: I have read in Hansard the hon. Gentleman's remarks about what the leader of the Liberal Democratic party said last Friday and I agree with them. Will he please continue to monitor the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Churchill: While we must all hope that the bloodshed in Bosnia will not spill over into Macedonia, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether Her Majesty's Government will ensure that we do not see in Macedonia a repetition of the declaration of safe havens which has been so disastrous in the case of Bosnia, where there was no evident United Nations determination to deploy forces to make areas safe? Have not these safe havens been just a cruel deception, which has undermined the authority of the United Nations?

Mr. Hurd: Safe havens are an attempt to save people's lives. We started with humanitarian convoys. Then we moved on, despite considerable scepticism. Some European countries provided troops to escort the convoys and enable them to get through. We are seeking to move to the stage of making places safe, but that depends on a Security Council resolution—there is such a resolution—on a degree of local agreement and on the provision of more troops. What is necessary cannot be done without more troops. We are doing our bit, as are the French. Success relies on more countries coming forward in response to the Secretary-General's appeal and some countries are coming forward. Some Scandinavian countries are responding and the Secretary-General is now putting the list together. The greater the number of troops


that can be brought in, the safer the areas will become and the more likely it will be that some reality will emerge from the rhetoric of which my hon. Friend complains.

Mr. Connarty: Does the Secretary of State realise how ironic it is that he should be talking about Macedonia in the same terms as about Bosnia? We recognise Bosnia. Is not everyone worried that when Croatia and Serbia have carved up Bosnia, they will turn to other targets? The shame that we shall have to wade through will be similar to what we have done in Bosnia and what is happening in Croatia. In fact, we may find ourselves throwing paper at the antagonists, as the right hon. Gentleman says has been done in the case of the Washington agreement. We should be talking about putting together a peace-making force to guarantee Macedonia's boarders. At the moment, all that we have is a few troops from a few countries.

Mr. Hurd: The position in Macedonia is different. The hon. Gentleman will agree that the great majority—about 90 per cent.—of those fighting in Bosnia are Bosnians. They are helped and encouraged from outside, particularly from Serbia. There is no substantial Serb minority in Macedonia.
However, the hon. Gentleman is the only one I have heard who is in favour of sending a military expedition into Bosnia to impose a solution. I respect the honesty of his views, although I do not share them.

Hong Kong

Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Hong Kong to discuss Sino-British relations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goodlad: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has at present no plans to do so, but I visited Hong Kong from 29 May to I June. Talks are continuing between Britain and China on electoral arrangements in Hong Kong. We are working for an early and successful conclusion in time for us to hold elections in Hong Kong in 1994 and 1995 which are fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong.

Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that pushing ahead with the new airport in Hong Kong is crucial to maintaining confidence for the future there, especially among the commercial community? Can he give some hope of progress in the relatively near future in the discussions with the Chinese authorities about the financing arrangements for that airport?

Mr. Goodlad: My hon. Friend is correct: everybody agrees that Hong Kong needs a new airport if it is to remain an international trade and financial centre. We have done our best to take account of Chinese problems with financing arrangements and further discussions on those arrangements are taking place. I hope that they will lead to an agreement. Our view remains that if the problems were dealt with on their merits they could be quickly solved and that would certainly be a great boost to confidence. In the meantime, we are maintaining momentum on the airport to avoid expensive cost increases and slippages.

Ms Hoey: Does the Minister envisage any circumstances in which the Government might renege on the 1997 agreement to withdraw from Hong Kong?

Mr. Goodlad: No.

Points of Order

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. A few weeks ago, during the debate on the White Paper about the coal industry, you along with the rest of us heard the President of the Board of Trade and others speak about saving so many pits. We wanted to save all 31, and the Minister said that they would save a few. The news has now reached us that one of the pits that the President of the Board of Trade said would be saved, not shut—Rufford, in the east midlands—is due for closure this weekend.
Have you, Madam Speaker, at any time received from the President of the Board of Trade an application to make a statement to the House so that we can ensure we have not been hoodwinked by the President—because it looks very much like it?

Madam Speaker: If any Minister had sought to make a statement today, it would have appeared on the Annunciator and we would all know about it.

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It arises from my request to you earlier today for a private notice question—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should understand that once I have made a decision he cannot raise the issue with me.

Mr. Wilshire: I was about to say that I am not seeking to challenge that.

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman raising a point of order for me?

Mr. Wilshire: I am, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: In that case I must hear it.

Mr. Wilshire: I seek your advice and help in protecting the interests of my constituents, and I do so as a result of a matter that I discovered subsequent to my request to you this morning.
I now realise that on 9 June the Department of Transport published air accident report No. 3/93, briefed the press upon it and gave copies to the press. The report reveals matters of grave importance to my constituents. It shows that a pilot suffered structural damage to his aircraft but failed to declare an emergency although there was one. He asked leave to land at Heathrow airport, in my constituency, but was asked to go to Stansted. He assumed that that request was made because he would overfly—

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot interest myself in the argument. The hon. Gentleman must put a clear point of order. Does the matter affect our Standing Orders or procedures?

Mr. Wilshire: Yes, it does, Madam Deputy Speaker, but in order to show you why—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am being demoted.

Mr. Wilshire: I apologise, Madam Speaker. As you will appreciate, I do not often raise points of order, so I hope that you will allow a minimum amount of latitude.
The facts that I have given are essential to an understanding that my constituents, who suffered from the crash at Staines, are desperately worried.
I am able to tell you all this, Madam Speaker, only because of the media. I made inquiries and discovered that no local Member of Parliament was told by the Department of Transport and that no copy of the report has been deposited in the House. Is this something that you can look into to ensure that such matters are reported to the House?

Madam Speaker: It is a matter for the hon. Gentleman himself. As he knows, there are various procedures by which he can seek the information that he requires. He can seek to ask questions or apply for an Adjournment debate. Perhaps on reflection he will explore one of those avenues with a view to obtaining the information that he wants.

Mr. Ian Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you had a request from the Home Secretary to come to the House to make a statement about his announcement, which most Conservative Members welcome, to the media concerning the introduction of the expandable side-handled police baton?

Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.

BILL PRESENTED

CIVIL RIGHTS (DISABLED PERSONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Mr. James Molyneaux, Rev. Martin Smyth, Sir James Kilfedder, Dr. Joe Hendron, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Mr. Eddie McGrady, Rev. William McCrea, Mr. Roy Beggs and Mr. Clifford Forsythe, presented a Bill to prohibit, in Northern Ireland, discrimination against disabled people on the ground of their disability; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time,; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July 1993, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

Funding of Political Parties

Mr. John Spellar: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the funding of political parties, and for connected purposes.
Let me make it clear that it is not about state funding for political parties; it is principally about regulating outside donations.
The Bill has three main aims: first, to prohibit donations by foreign nationals not normally resident in this country, and by overseas companies and overseas Governments; secondly, to ensure the recording and publication of donations above a certain limit, probably about £1,000; thirdly, to require political parties to publish income and expenditure accounts, in the same way as companies and trade unions do.
I am sure that such measures would be welcomed, not only by the Opposition but by many Conservatives, particularly those who support the Charter movement and who are demanding openness in their own party. I hope that the chairman of the Conservative party will be able to enlighten the Home Affairs Committee about many of these matters later today.
The House passed a resolution as far back as December 1949 that
political parties, and all other organisations having political action as one of their aims, should publish annually full and adequate statements of their accounts.
Perhaps 40 years is enough time for even the Tory party to catch up.
Why is party funding, particularly funding of the Conservative party, such a relevant issue today? After all, the brewers have been involved in Tory politics for centuries; even today their influence is fairly substantial. Various shadowy organisations, such as British United Industrialists, have been funnelling money into Tory coffers for years. It is nearly 50 years since the so-called River companies were set up as a secret conduit for funds for the Tory party which it wanted to keep hidden from public gaze.
It has also been clear for many years, to put it delicately, that there has been a strong statistical link between donations from companies and the chances of their bosses getting knighthoods and peerages. I am sure that that is a matter of coincidence. It has also been a long-running scandal that the Conservative party does not publish proper accounts, even for its own members.
Recent events—particularly the case of Mr. Asil Nadir —have made this a major and burning public issue. We are talking about some very big money. Donations to the central Tory party came to an estimated £7·5 million in 1989, £7·9 million in 1990, £15·8 million in 1991, and a whopping £20·7 million in 1992. Donations from constituency associations and published donations in company accounts came to only a small percentage of this. So where is the rest coming from? It has become increasingly clear that it comes from extremely wealthy individuals, both at home and abroad.

Mr. David Winnick: Such as Asil Nadir?

Mr. Spellar: I am not sure whether Asil Nadir should be regarded as a domestic or overseas donor in this context. We have an estimate of his donation, admitted by the Tory party, of £400,000. The press has reported figures ranging

up to £1·5 million. It has also been reported that moneys were being accepted from him when it was clear that his business was in a shaky state. We do not know whether the money came out of his own pocket or from his company without even being legally reported. I am sure that his creditors will be most interested in knowing that. We hope that the chairman of the Conservative party will shed some light on the matter.
British pension funds—and that means, in real terms, ordinary British pensioners—lost some £2 billion when Polly Peck crashed. We know that Asil Nadir received considerable support. What the public want to know about Asil Nadir and others is, what did they pay and what did they get for it? We know what Asil Nadir got. He did not get his knighthood, but he got seven Tory Members of Parliament, including Ministers, to press his case.
What did the others get and what did they pay? What of some of the other dubious donors whose names have been linked with Tory funding?

Mr. David Evans: What about Robert Maxwell?

Mr. Spellar: I am very pleased to hear that the Bill has all-party support. It shows that there is a great demand for it and it is extremely helpful to know that it is widely supported, even from such a dubious source.
What about Mr. Gerald Ronson, who was briefly a guest of Her Majesty's Government, who is alleged to have made donations through companies, possibly in the Virgin Islands? Jack Lyons was convicted of fraud and stripped of his knighthood and Nazmu Virani is now facing fraud charges regarding false loans from BCCI.
It is said that one of the benefits to donors was a tax break for foreign business men who are given tax exemptions equalled only in Switzerland, the Channel Islands and Luxembourg. How much is that costing the taxpayer? Is it not ironic that, when the Secretary of State for Social Security, the mad axeman of the Government, is prepared to savage the welfare state, the Government are forgoing substantial tax income from people who already have more money than they need? It is even reported that the Prime Minister hosted a fund-raising dinner for some of them.
One alleged beneficiary is John Latsis, who was extremely friendly with the Greek colonels. Another is Mr. Li Ka Shing, a Hong Kong billionaire who is well connected in Beijing. He is alleged to have given about half a million pounds.
It is ironic that the Tories made so much fuss about money going from Moscow to the Communist party. It seems that Communist-connected money is acceptable from Beijing but not from Moscow. It is also said that the Prime Minister dropped off for a special dinner in Hong Kong. We want to know the facts, and so do the public.
Why should overseas plutocrats take such an interest in our affairs to the tune of an estimated £7 million in 1991–92 alone? It is not just a question of foreign business men; it is believed that foreign Governments are also involved. The Governments of Brunei, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia have all been mentioned in articles. Is the British Government's foreign policy up for sale? What is the truth and how many others are there? The public have a right to know.
The United States have sensibly banned foreign donations and we should follow that example. It is an outrage that the Tory party should be wrapped up in such secrecy and be dependent on excessively large donations or loans from those who are not prepared to be publicly identified.
More than 100 years ago, in 1883, Lord Randolph Churchill told the Tory party conference in Birmingham:
When you allow secret expenditure, you will certainly have corrupt expenditure.
It is equally absurd that the Government are not prepared to provide proper accounts showing where the money goes and the level of their debts. It is only when we get a revelation like the spending on the legal bill of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) that the facts come out. The response of the Tory donors was drastic: half a million pounds was the estimate from the current vice-chairman of the Tory party.
Perhaps that is why the Government are so reticent, but, as Professor Keith Ewing said in evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee,
Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear".
The Select Committee may come up with other measures. All I am hoping to do is to enable light to be shed on the dark and sleazy world of Tory political finance which has been hidden from the public gaze for too long.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Spellar, Mrs. Barbara Roche, Mr. Mike O'Brien, Mr. David Winnick, Ms Angela Eagle, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and Mr. Gordon McMaster.

FUNDING OF POLITICAL PARTIES

Mr. John Spellar accordingly presented a Bill to regulate the funding of political parties: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 July, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed that my hon. Friend's ten-minute Bill had overwhelming and unanimous support from the House; there was no opposition to it. One or two Conservative Members made noises, which is all that some of them seem capable of doing, but no voices were raised in objection to the Bill. It clearly has the unanimous support of the House, and I am sure that it has strong support in the country.
May I have your advice, please, Madam Speaker? Given the unanimous support for the Bill, are there any swift procedures whereby it can be enacted? It is clearly what the House wants and what the country needs.

Madam Speaker: There is no easy way to success in this House. I am afraid that it is uphill all the way.

Orders of the Day — Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Bill

Lords amendments further considered.

Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 22

RIGHT TO MATERNITY LEAVE AND RIGHT TO RETURN TO WORK

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 40, leave out lines 40 to 44.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 26.

Mr. Forsyth: The amendments fulfil an undertaking given by my noble Friend Viscount Ullswater to Lord Mottistone in Committee in another place. Lord Mottistone had raised a particular concern of employers about a woman who comes back from maternity leave early, without telling her employer of her intentions. Employers have pointed out that if they are unable to plan for that eventuality, the person whom they have taken on to replace the employee during her maternity leave will still be in post. The employer will be liable to give the replacement at least a week's notice and will end up having to pay for two people to do one job—the woman and her replacement.
I do not expect that such a situation will arise often. Most women will probably choose to take their full 14 weeks' statutory entitlement and those who do not will, in the main, be in touch with their employer anyway and will want to let him or her know their date of return so that preparations can be made for it. Only a very small minority of employees are likely to behave otherwise. However, the Government agree with employers that it would not be reasonable for them to be put to trouble and expense by such thoughtless behaviour.
The main amendment therefore provides that, in the rare case where a woman seeks to arrive back at work early without giving her employer a week's warning, he or she will be able to send her away again to continue her maternity leave until the seven days have expired—or until the end of the statutory period of leave, if that is earlier. That will enable the temporary replacement to be given the proper week's notice to which he or she is entitled, at the end of which the woman on maternity leave can return to work.
The other amendments in the group are mainly consequential and ensure that employees are able to choose whichever is the more favourable of their contractual or statutory rights in any particular aspect. The provisions ensure that the position is equivalent—in respect of the new right to maternity leave—to the current situation regarding maternity absence.
I commend the amendments to the House.

Ms Joyce Quin: I have listened carefully to the Minister. We are disappointed that the maternity provisions of the Bill have come back largely unchanged from the other place and that we shall consider only this rather modest amendment. We are therefore left with a highly unsatisfactory package of measures covering pregnant women at work and women who wish to return to work after having a baby. It is a pity that the new intake at the Department of Employment has not been prepared, even at this late stage, to take a fresh, positive look at the maternity provisions in the Bill.
The new Secretary of State is in his place. His reputation was referred to yesterday. He is also reputed to be a pro-European. It seems a great shame that, the day after being appointed to his new post, he should find himself in a minority of one in the European Community —seeming to embark on a route that would not endear him to his European colleagues, with whom we thought that he would work closely and have a great deal in common.
I am also disappointed that our amendments to Lords amendment No. 25 were not selected and were deemed to be technically incorrect; they would have given us a chance to vote on improvements to a very unsatisfactory situation.
The Minister explained that the amendment stemmed from a suggestion by one of his noble Friends who felt that it would help employers, although the suggestion does not seem to have been researched in any depth. I was reminded of a comment made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) when winding up the debate. He said that the minute that there seemed to be any conflict between the interests of employer and employee, the Government immediately jumped in without further examination and decided that the employer must be right in all circumstances. My hon. Friend said that that seemed to be some law of nature for the Government. I would go further and say that it saddens me that the Government always seem to be on the side of the had employer rather than the good one. It is a great pity that they seem to react in a knee-jerk manner.
Good employers already give better maternity benefits than those in the Bill, which is a weak translation of the relevant European Community directive. Only bad employers wish to deny employees rights and are fe]:t to be normal and natural elsewhere. It is they who cause us difficulties in that regard. Such employers exploit the good will of their work force. That seems to be why the amendment was introduced.
The Minister seemed to feel that not many women, employees or firms would be affected by the amendment, but how widely has he consulted? He has not had much time to consult about the amendment and the wisdom of altering the situation, adding greater complexity to an already complex set of arrangements which govern maternity provision.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Lady is usually extremely generous in her comments. However, is it not a little churlish to complain that no further amendments have come from the other place when, on Report, at her request and behest, we accepted two important amendments extending maternity rights? Does it not add insult to injury for her to complain that we did not consult fully before making amendments when she made no such

complaints while urging the Government on Report to accept the changes in respect of entitlement to choose between sick leave and maternity leave, for example?

Ms Quin: I am sorry if the Minister feels that I am being churlish, but having looked at the report of the proceedings of the Bill in another place I was impressed by the number and quality of the amendments put forward, in particular by Baroness Lockwood and Baroness Turner. I t is those amendments that I am disappointed the Government have not seen fit to accept.
I welcome the fact that in Committee the Government accepted some of the Opposition's suggestions, but to a certain extent consultation was not necessary as all members of the Committee had received wide representation from many people about the particular matter that the Government decided to take on board.
The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but there does not seem to have been wide consultation or a wide measure of representation on this amendment. It seems to have resulted from a comment made in the other place, to which the Minister referred. Apart from that, I know of no other representations that were made. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us if there were a large number of representations. The fact that he remains silent suggests that he has not been written to by a large number of firms on this issue.
In many ways the amendment is rather difficult to object to in detail, but we wish to vote against it as it is a symptom of the Government's willingness to see only one side of an argument and to introduce a further element of complexity which makes an already difficult position a great deal worse.
The Minister commented vaguely on the number of firms and individuals likely to be affected. It is a pity that he is unable to give further information. Certain women who are not well off may feel a compulsion to return to work even before 14 weeks, despite that being inadequate maternity leave. I have seen no figures on the number of women who might want to do that.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Lady is being extremely unfair on the Government. She suggests that we have been one-sided in respect of our response to representations on the amendment from the Confederation of British Industry. Equally, the CBI made representations that were not favourable to the amendment that the hon. Lady tabled at an earlier stage in the Bill's consideration, to give women the right to an extra four weeks' absence where they have a doctor's certificate indicating sickness arising from their pregnancy.
It is wrong of the hon. Lady to suggest that we have considered only one side of the argument. In this case, we responded to reasonable concerns expressed by business. I explained that it would be unlikely for notice not to be given, because most people will be courteous and have an arrangement with their employer, to ensure that such a thing would be done anyway.

Ms Quin: I accept that the Minister listened to the CBI's point of view, but responded to a different one—although I do not believe that a particular point of view one way or the other was overwhelmingly held by employers.
The Government were dragged kicking and screaming into accepting the terms of the EC directive. They did not positively vote in favour of it, but attempted to weaken it


at many stages in its progress through the Community. When the Minister and I recently crossed swords in a European Standing Committee, the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that the Community should not bother itself with the whole range of social issues. He said that most robustly, and is now nodding his head, even though those social issues, as many members of the Committee forcefully pointed out, do not stem from the Maastricht treaty but from even further back than the treaty of Rome —to the treaty setting up the European Coal and Steel Community, when there was an obvious detailed and firm commitment to a social dimension in European institutions.
The Government's overall record on implementing that particular directive is far from distinguished. In nearly all cases, the Government have tended to back a narrow-minded employer's point of view.
The health and safety of the baby is paramount, and the amendment—which relates to the 14 weeks' maternity leave, which we feel is too short—encourages a system that is not in the interests of many mothers or their babies. Although it may be true that some employers like to receive notice if new mothers intend to return to work early, many employers disagree with the Government's overall view and would prefer to see longer rather than shorter maternity leave. They take that view in fairness to the employee and in terms of the ease of finding a replacement for the absent employee.
The shorter the period of maternity leave, the more difficult it can often be for an employer to obtain a replacement. A strong argument can be made for 18 weeks, plus the period of the right to return to work which many subject to employment protection currently enjoy but which the women who particularly concern us, at the end of the scale, do not enjoy. They are important points which the Government should bear in mind.
4 pm
Underlying the amendment is the argument that the Government have used many times. They do not want extra costs or administrative burdens to be placed on business. Behind that is the wider argument, which the Government persist in pursuing despite evidence to the contrary, that employment protection measures destroy jobs. That is the over-simplified view with which we have had to contend many times during our debates. In dealing with the argument about costs in another place, Viscount Ullswater did not provide detailed figures of how the costs break down in this and related matters.
I beg the Government to reconsider the question of costs. I recently came across an interesting publication produced by Business in the Community and the Institute of Personnel Management. It is entitled "Corporate Culture and Caring" and talks of what it calls the business case for family-friendly provision. Pages 59 and 62 show clearly that for many companies it is cheaper to give women generous maternity leave rather than to encourage women to leave their jobs or even to sack those who do not have employment protection because companies then have to bear the costs associated with starting and training a replacement. In the example cited, the company was saving about £250,000 by giving its employees generous maternity provision and generous help with child care and by following other family-friendly policies. I urge the

Government to study the publication because a respectable case can be made for stating that employers can save money by offering proper employment protection, especially for women leaving work to have a baby.
The Government's costings were not very well received in another place. Indeed, they have been challenged there in the report of the Committee that scrutinises European legislation. It was found that the costs referred to by the Government could be offset by other considerations.
Although the amendment in itself is not substantial, it is nevertheless a symptom of the way in which the Government approach the issue. They have missed the opportunity provided by the Bill to give a fair deal to pregnant women and women who wish to return to work after having a baby. They have also, tragically, missed the opportunity to bring our standards up to those of many other countries in the European Community.
The Government seem to regard European legislation as a ceiling rather than a floor. In fact, it is meant to be only a floor of protection, and it is up to individual countries to provide extra protection if they wish. Unfortunately, the Government want to get away with the minimum, whereas we believe that they should go for the maximum in terms of benefits and employment rights for working women, which is the fair deal that they deserve.

Ms Angela Eagle: This part of the Bill, which confers a number of extremely limited new rights on employees protected by law, reveals the Government at their most schizophrenic. The Minister of State in particular and the Government in general believe that any statutory protection for people at work is somehow a burden on business, merely a cost and something which should be reduced to the absolute minimum. Now, however, they are biting their tongue while introducing legislation to give minimum new rights to people who previously did not have them. In this case, it is to pregnant women who do not qualify for the existing right to maternity leave because they have not been working in the same job for long enough.
What is happening? As has already been said, I believe that the Government have been forced by European directives against their will to introduce rights with which they do not agree. They have therefore tried to introduce them as reluctantly as possible, in the most complex possible way, so that although women will be allowed to take them up, in practical terms it will be extremely difficult to claim them. The maternity provisions in the Bill provide a prime example of the Government in that schizophrenic state.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I hate to ruin the hon. Lady's theory, but may I draw her attention to the fact that all Conservative Members stood on a manifesto commitment to introduce those rights? The notion that we were forced to do so by the European Community is absurd.
Secondly, were it not for the British presidency the combination of the antics of the European Parliament and those of the Italians would have prevented the directive from coming into force at all. It was thanks to the efforts of my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State, now the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in her role as president of the Social Affairs Council, that we were able to secure the directive, and the rights that accrue from it, within the Community.

Ms Eagle: I am touched that the Government seem so concerned about their manifesto commitments, although they have spent the past few months reneging on most of them in the Budget—but I do not want to go into that.

Mr. Frank Dobson: My hon. Friend may agree that if there were any praise to be allocated for managing to get the directive through the European Community, it should go to Christine Crawley, the Member of the European Parliament for Birmingham, East, who moved heaven and earth in the EC to ensure that the directive got through, against the usual obnoxious and ludicrous obstruction by the British Government.

Ms Eagle: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister will not be surprised to know that that is also my interpretation of the shenanigans that went on in Europe while the maternity directive was going through the procedures there. Simply examining the record proves that the Government consistently opposed the directive, watered it down and delayed it as much as they could. In the end they could not find it in their heart to vote for it, so they abstained. That makes the case that they are reluctant converts to putting any legal protection for employees on to the statute book.
Two minor amendments have come from the House of Lords and, ironically, they put obligations on employees rather than on employers. That, too, illustrates the Government's priorities. One of the new provisions; is that a woman has to give seven days' notice if she intends to return early. Nobody could strongly disagree with that, but it is disappointing that the Government have not seen fit to use the Lords stage of the Bill to clarify further some of the practical difficulties concerning the length of maternity leave proposed, which is 14 weeks.
Many women start their maternity leave with 11 weeks of their pregnancy to go. That leaves them a mere three weeks after giving birth not only to get the child home and start caring for it but to recover and then to think about the practicalities of going back to work and making provision for the care of such a young baby. Even that assumes that women are so mechanical that the date of conception can be precisely pinpointed and that the date of birth will be precisely nine months after conception, so that it will all fit neatly into the 14 weeks. Any mother, and any doctor, will tell us that there is no precise science and that the dates are simply estimates.
We discussed in Committee the fact that the absurd situation could arise, albeit in only a few cases, when the 14 weeks have passed and the baby has still not been born. We dealt with that problem to some extent in Committee, but, according to Maternity Alliance, 48 per cent. of women still take their maternity leave at a time that they think is about 11 weeks before the birth. That leaves them only three weeks to deal with all the practicalities that arise afterwards.
The trouble stems not from the fact that women may suddenly descend on their employers without warning and cause practical problems, but that 14 weeks is too short a time and presents practical difficulties, both to the woman and the child, which may affect the child's health. I would have preferred the Lords to consider that, rather than trying to impose more duties on employees.
There are all kinds of reasons why a woman who has given birth may not be in a position to return to work and leave the baby at home well and settled in a mere three

weeks. For example, 5 to 7 per cent. of live births in Britain are premature. Depending on how premature the babies are, they may need special care and they may have to stay in hospital, which causes practical problems for new mothers ensuring that their children are okay and that they can visit them. All those possible problems militate against a mother trying to return to work before the baby is thriving and settled.
One per cent. of babies are extremely premature and that can lead to months of hospital treatment before the baby is allowed home. The existing law and the proposed change in the law says nothing about what a mother in such a situation is meant to do when contemplating returning to work. As premature births occur in a small percentage of cases, the Lords amendment should have considered the practical problems that a minority of women must face having given birth prematurely, with the problems that arise thereafter.
Ten per cent. of newborn babies have problems requiring special or intensive care, which can last for several weeks. It means that not only are those mothers unable to return to work early but they are not even in a position to return to work after their 14 weeks' maternity leave. Those mothers then have the choice of giving up their jobs or trying to negotiate an unpaid period of leave. Just when mothers are incurring all kinds of costs after having a baby, they must contemplate taking unpaid leave and losing their earning power altogether.
With multiple births—as a twin, I speak with some feeling, and 30 in every 1,000 live births are now triplets or more—birth weights are lower and it takes longer for those children to reach the stage when they are stable and thriving. There are also practical problems suddenly facing a mother who, with many young children, has the organisational task of getting her home into some sort of equilibrium so that she can contemplate returning to work.
Caesarean deliveries require a longer period of recuperation for the mother than for the baby. Again there are only three weeks in which the new mother is meant to have sorted out all the practical difficulties and found herself back at work. The problem is not the employer's of having a woman decide that she is going to return to work early and giving a week's notice. The problems are all on the side of the mother and baby. Why have the Government decided to move Lords amendment No. 24, after one comment in the Lords on that relatively trivial matter, and to ignore serious, practical problems that occur day in, day out for new mothers?
Other issues such as the health of baby must be considered. It is thought that 14 weeks is inadequate to establish breast-feeding—as encouraged by the Government and especially the Department of Health. The number of the mothers who breast-feed is declining, which is a health threat to new babies. It should have been in the Government's mind to ensure that, before having to return to work, a mother was able to establish adequate breast-feeding arrangements for her new baby so that she could protect its health to the best possible extent.
The timetable for the immunisation of babies is more suited to the old system of maternity benefit than the new 14-week rule. The Department of Employment seems to have given little consideration to these matters, despite the fact that the Department of Health is extremely concerned about them.
I should have liked the Lords amendments to give some recognition of those factors, yet once again the other place has not seen fit to make amendments to deal with such practical problems.
The Government are concerned about what they call "costs to business", but seemingly are not concerned about practical measures to ensure the health of mothers and babies and therefore the next generation.
4.15 pm
Lords amendment No. 25, rather than attempting to tackle the complex nature of the old system, new statutory provision and extra provisions that employers may make in some cases for the female work force, merely says that women can take the best provision that is available to them. Why on earth does not it simplify and consolidate maternity provision so that employers and mothers-to-be could simply work out the entitlement from a leaflet and plan for the birth of the baby?
Instead, we have three complex and convoluted systems working in tandem. Nobody is sure how they work together or what provisions a mother may be entitled to. The Lords amendment says that she can have the system that is best for her. Lords amendments Nos. 24 and 25 address the wrong problems. They are too obsessed with disbenefits to the employer rather than practical help to the mother.
Maternity leave should be seen as a right and not as a cost. If the Government were committed to sensible maternity provision of which Britain could be proud they would have considered it in that light rather than being so churlish about the new rights that they have introduced. Maternity leave is vital to ensure reasonable equal opportunities. It is a starting point for dealing with the many other matters necessary to ensure that women can take their rightful place in the economic life of the nation and in society in general.
There is a practical and moral case for women to be given provision that they and employers understand and that can be triggered easily. For those reasons, the Lords amendments address the wrong issues. They are too modest and they do not solve the serious problems that have resulted from the Government's seeming unwillingness to provide a simple, easy system of maternity provision that women can look forward to receiving.

Mr. Richard Burden: I was staggered by the Minister of State's sedentary remark that the British Government saved the pregnant women at work directive. We have spent many hours discussing that, in Committee and in the Chamber, but clearly it has not sunk in with the Minister of State. Therefore, let us again examine how the British Government allegedly saved the directive.
When the directive was first proposed by the Commission, it suggested that any woman working since the beginning of her pregnancy, whether full or part-time, would be eligible for a minimum maternity leave entitlement of 14 weeks on full pay, with the flexibility of further time on 80 per cent. of pay.
I should like to ask the Minister of State whether the Government now support that. If he was in the Chamber, he would be able to give me an answer, but I shall return to it when he comes back.
The directive would apply to all companies, irrespective of size. Do the Government now support that? There would be two weeks' compulsory rest on full pay before the birth. Is the Minister now saying that the Government support that? Women would not lose pay for ante-natal appointments during working time. I understand that the Government support that principle—they just did not want it in the Bill because they said that it was self-evident, despite the fact that several industrial tribunal and other cases have shown that the matter is far from simple in practice. Periods of sickness during pregnancy could not be deducted from maternity leave. The Government have a rather ambiguous position on that matter, and I would like them to clarify it.
All work-related rights would be maintained during pregnancy. Dismissals linked to pregnancy would be outlawed. Employers would be required to improve conditions at work and find alternative jobs or an improved environment for pregnant and breast-feeding women should that be necessary. There must be a real alternative to night work for pregnant women, for at least eight weeks before the birth. That was the original draft directive introduced in 1990.
The final directive was approved two years later. It took two years, because the original proposals were watered down and blocked. The state that had more to do with that blocking process than any other was Britain. If the Minister is saying that the directive was saved by the Government, he has an obligation to say whether the draft directive containing real improvements for working women is now acceptable to the Government. If it is not, his statement that the Government saved the directive is no more than fluff.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said, if anyone saved that directive and is responsible for ensuring that some modest improvements have been adopted in European and now also in British law, it is probably Christine Crawley, the MEP for Birmingham, East. Organisations such as Maternity Alliance, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and the Equal Opportunities Commission should be thanked for the good work they have done. We have nothing for which to thank the Government. They have given every concession with a bad grace, and have had to be pushed and shoved into doing so.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am sure that Miss Crawley is a perfectly splendid person, but will the hon. Gentleman explain what role she played in ending the difficulties resulting from a conflict with the European Parliament? I had the impression that my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State was responsible for bringing that to a conclusion. I would be more than fascinated if the hon. Gentleman could explain the role played by Miss Crawley in that.

Mr. Burden: Christine Crawley was the chair of the Committee on Women's Rights at the European Parliament. That Committee, more than any other body, was responsible for bringing the various parties together to ensure that the views expressed by the British Government and others did not wreck the directive. That ensured a successful outcome of sorts.
If the Minister is saying that the Government were in favour of that directive, why did they object to the specific provisions suggested by the European Commission and


the European Parliament? Why was it that, in the final vote during a Fisheries meeting, Britain could not even bring itself to vote for the directive, but only abstained? It is odd to claim credit for a piece of legislation by saying that one abstained when it came up for a vote. That is an astonishing statement.
The amendment has been tabled by the Government because, without it, the Bill would be inconvenient. It would not be particularly inconvenient for women, but it would be inconvenient for employers, because a woman could return to work early after having a baby and not give notice. Taken in isolation, that point might be reasonable. But of course the legislation does not exist in isolation; it exists in the round.
If we want to ensure that the legislation is as convenient as possible for all concerned—mothers and employers—would it not be rather more useful for the Government to listen to the advice that they received from the Maternity Alliance, Opposition Members and all kinds of experts who suggested that the way that the legislation could be most simplified and made most effective and most convenient would be to extend the period of minimum maternity leave to 18 weeks—indeed, to extend it to the levels that were envisaged in the European directive in the first place?
If the Government consider that the welfare of the mother and the baby is important, let me give them some examples. Some have already been given by my hon. Friends. Under the Bill, even though there is some statutory protection for a woman from coming back to work before she is ready because of illness, there is very little or no protection if the baby is ill. Extending the period of statutory maternity leave in the way that we have been urging would not overcome that problem, but it would help. The Government have refused to help in that way.
We have already heard that the Government—indeed many Governments—encourage breast feeding, yet a woman will be required to go back to work perhaps just three weeks after she has had a baby. How on earth does that fit with a Government who claim to encourage breast feeding? The timing of the vaccination and inoculation programme that is recommended for babies these days just does not fit with the insistence that women should go back to work after just 14 weeks.
It has been proved that the chances of finding a child minder in the vital early weeks after birth are much more difficult. That position would be improved if the Government had seen fit to increase the period to 18 weeks. Those are real conveniences that the Government could have offered to employers and women, but they have not done so. Why not? They say that it is because of cost.
Cost has been mentioned time and again in respect of this aspect of the Bill. It is time that the point was answered. Ministers have thrown out figures and mentioned an alleged cost of £200 million if the maternity leave period is extended to 18 weeks. They have never stated the reasons or the basis for that calculation, but they have said that it would cost about £200 million and that it would be a burden on employers' costs. Two points arise.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am not aware that the Government have ever said that. We have estimated the cost of the additional four weeks at £50 million. But £200 million is a big number and £50 million is also a big

number, particularly when employers are obviously fighting to maintain employment and improve employment prospects for those who are unemployed.

Mr. Burden: I am grateful for that intervention. I find it interesting that the figure has apparently been revised downwards. I do not have to hand the Hansard reference showing where the £200 million comes from, but the reference exists. If the figure is now said to be £50 million and that it is a big cost, in terms of how much money the Minister and I have, it is a lot of money.
I would not say that £50 million, even if the amount were that much, was a great deal of money for a Government to spend to ensure that working women had decent maternity rights. When we compare £50 million with the £1 billion that was lost in one day in order to maintain the fig leaf over the Chancellor's economic policies, it does not seem a great deal.

Ms Quin: Some information which I did not have available during our earlier deliberations on this subject reinforces my hon. Friend's point. A letter from the Federation of Small Businesses to the previous Secretary of State for Employment states very clearly:
From the point of view of small businesses, this increase"—

that is, the extension from 14 weeks to 18 weeks—
would make little difference and we would have no objection to the proposed amendment.
The federation says that costs are incurred at an earlier stage and can stay in place for an extra four weeks without any problem at all, and that extending the leave to 18 weeks would simplify the system and make it easier for small employers who find the present set-up, like the set-up proposed in the Bill, a real headache.

Mr. Burden: My hon. Friend makes an exceptionally valid point. Ministers manage to talk at two levels when they refer to the costs involved. They are not always over-specific about who they expect to stand which cost. They say that the cost will be a burden on employers. However, if the state was prepared to extend the period of statutory paid maternity leave to 18 weeks, the cost would not fall on employers—it would fall on us as a society. But is it too much to expect society to give working women the same sort of rights that women in other countries get?
My hon. Friend made an especially valid point about the cost to employers. If a woman is on maternity leave and an employer appoints a temporary replacement, costs have been incurred, and increasing the period to 18 weeks would make virtually no difference. Indeed, it may be that employers' costs are reduced in the medium and longer term because the consequence of having inadequate maternity leave and not seriously addressing the issue of a baby being ill or the mother not being ready to come back to work, and the problems of breast feeding and finding a child minder, is often to force working women to leave their jobs. The result is that the employer must pay the cost of advertising, finding a replacement and so on. It would be much better if decent maternity leave was given in the first place.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman again. I suspect that the figure that he has in mind of £200 million probably relates to the compliance cost assessment of between £100 million and £250 million that we produced, a copy of which is in the Library. If he


is right about no costs being involved, and if the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) is right about the assessment of the Federation of Small Businesses that there is no cost in extending the period from 14 weeks to 18 weeks, there is nothing to prevent them from doing so. They are free to extend it. Employers can agree that the leave will be longer if they so wish. That is a contractual matter between employers and employees.
If the hon. Gentleman is right about all the advantages to business, we do not need to pass legislation to compel employers to do what he says is in their economic interests. However, our assessment is that it would add a cost of £50 million, which would create difficulties for employment in the future, especially for women.

Mr. Burden: It is precisely because enlightened employers understand that decent maternity leave provisions are in their interests, as well as in the interests of the mother, that so many of them offer maternity leave provisions that are well above the statutory minimum. The importance of having a statutory minimum is not to force enlightened or forward-looking employers to do what they see is in their interests and in the interests of the mother.
The importance of having a statutory minimum is to ensure that there is protection against bad employers, short-sighted employers or employers who have a narrow view of working women's rights, the interests of their enterprise and how they should operate in a civilised society, just as the importance of having wages councils has always been to ensure that pay does not fall below a minimum level.
The ridiculous thing about the Government's approach to this matter and the argument by the Minister, which underlies their proposal to abolish wages councils, will not make much difference as far as good employers are concerned. However, it will ensure that bad employers and bad employment practices are given statutory sanction. That is the tragedy of the Government's approach to employment legislation.
The amendment was not introduced when the matter was discussed in this place, but it was felt to be so important that it was introduced in another place. It was felt that, if the worst came to the worst and an unreasonable mother gave no notice to her employers but simply returned to work earlier than expected and demanded her work back—I cannot imagine many women doing that—the employer might have to bear an extra cost for a few days. That possibility is seen as so significant that it requires not only an amendment in another place but a debate here today.
Does it not reveal that the Government have an odd set of priorities when that possibility is seen as significant, but a mother's rights to decent child care, to breast-feed her baby for a reasonable period and to have a decent period of maternity leave are not seen to be important? It is not considered important to introduce legislation to ensure that bad employers are encouraged to become good employers. It seems that the Government, as so often, have their priorities wrong.
The statements that have been made about why it is unnecessary to legislate reveal the attitude that was displayed during the debates in Europe. I am pleased with the legislation as far as it goes. It is a small step forward, but does not go far enough. Instead of introducing

one-sided amendments that benefit only the employer, it would be better if, for once, the Government started listening to working women, and introduced amendments to benefit them and guarantee decent maternity rights in this country.

Mr. Andrew Miller: I am surprised to see that a Conservative Member wants to speak at this late stage in our debate. I was beginning to think that no Conservative Members held a view on the important issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) and others. As my hon. Friend said, in yesterday's debate reference was continually made to the employer's need and rights. I hope that the Government will relax their guard a little and talk about the interests of the child. If they do not, they will go down as being the Government who favoured bosses before babies. I hope that that does not prove to be the case. Children should be given the highest priority.
Throughout the debates, both in Committee and in the other place, the Opposition have sought to improve on the Government's position. Some interesting exchanges have suggested that the Government are still in a rut and apparently listen more patiently to employers' organisations than organisations representing and supporting women of child-bearing age. That is an extraordinary position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) referred, with the benefit of some personal knowledge, to the problems associated with multiple births. Knowing her sister as I do, I must say that if—or should I say when —she joins us in this place, it will present you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with an enormous problem. I cannot tell the two women apart and I look forward to seeing the Speaker being foxed over that.

Mr. Alex Carlile: What is a collection of eagles called?

Mr. Miller: I am not sure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) mentioned an important aspect of the debate—the availability of child care for parents of young babies. It is undoubtedly extremely difficult to find child care for young babies. A recent Equal Opportunities Commission report states that fewer than 10 per cent. of children between birth and the age of four have places in non-family child care. Recent Government child care regulations require one worker for every three babies in day nurseries and other collective child care arrangements. Although that is welcome as a measure to improve the quality of care, it restricts the number of places for babies in some nurseries.
I hope, therefore, that the Government will have fresh thoughts as we see how the legislation proceeds. Thirty-six per cent. of mothers returning to full-time work rely heavily on child minders for care, but many child minders are reluctant to care for children under the age of six months. The National Child minding Association has commented that the nature of the care required for young babies is particularly intensive. That is likely to reduce the number of minders willing to look after them. Caring for a small baby can make it impossible for a child minder to look after any other child and can reduce her income significantly. The 53 per cent. of working mothers who rely on relatives for care may also find them unwilling to care for babies who are as young as three weeks.
The Select Committee on Health recently commented on the EC directive on the protection of pregnant women at work—a subject on which we have just heard an interesting exchange between the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield. The Committee says in its second report that the United Kingdom Government have
laid itself open to the accusation that it is only interested in the effects the Directive would have on employers and on the Treasury.
That underlines my point about the Government putting bosses before babies. Perhaps the Minister will try to refute that and adopt a more flexible approach to the legislation.
The maternity provisions of the Bill fail to give sufficient priority to the needs of the child. The legislation is wholly unsatisfactory, and I hope that the Government will give it another careful look.

Mr. Hartley Booth: The speeches by the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) were classic examples of the Opposition's casual approach to placing burdens on business. They seem to discuss the issue as if it could be divided into two separate, unrelated boxes,. They seem to think that the burden on the employer is wholly unrelated to the situation of the mother and the child. The fact is that placing too many burdens on employers jeopardises chances of employment as well as the position of mother and child. The two issues are linked at every stage.

Ms Eagle: That was precisely the argument used before a Labour Government passed the equal pay legislation. It was said that, if women were granted equal pay, it would represent an extra cost and would militate against women being employed. Since then, there has, of course, been a huge growth in the employment of women.

Mr. Booth: I prefer to stick to the point in hand. I maintain that the Opposition treat burdens on employers casually. Their attempts to sidetrack me from the issue do not detract from the point that I am trying to make.
Our 14-week statutory period has been pooh-poohed by the Opposition, but Germany, Ireland and the two countries of the Iberian peninsula all have similar periods. It is a perfectly respectable period, and children and mothers can deal with it. It is accepted as a compromise.
I support Lord Ullswater's amendment. It was his proposal on 6 May that led to the suggestion that employers should be protected from mothers who come back at no notice to reclaim their jobs. This sensible amendment merely attempts to give employers seven days—

Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to learn that I do not intend to take up his phrase about protecting employers from mothers. I would, however, like to ask him about his international comparisons. I am sure that he would agree that it is important to compare like with like. Is he, for instance, aware that Germany gives 14 weeks on 100 per cent. of salary and Ireland gives 14 weeks on 70 per cent. of salary? One of the criticisms of the legislation is that it guarantees nothing about pay. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is a major omission from the Bill?

Mr. Booth: Pay is a matter for the DSS. I was only comparing the periods involved, and I do not want to widen the debate to other issues.
I support the Lords amendment because I think that we should prevent more burdens from being placed on employers. It would seem sensible of the Government to support that idea. That does not turn our party into a party that is against children or mothers—a ridiculous suggestion. The amendment prevents an additional burden from being imposed and allows for the smooth running of the workplace. Sudden events in the workplace cause friction and a great deal of trouble.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have had an interesting debate. When my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mr. Booth) said that we should remove burdens, I thought that he was referring to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden). Having heard his speech, I can see why my hon. Friend was provoked to adopt such an undemocratic view.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley about the importance of striking a balance between employment rights and costs. Compared with our European partners, we in Britain can be proud of the much higher proportion of our labour force that is in employment and the larger percentage of women who work. Apart from Denmark, which has about the same number of women at work, we have the highest proportion in Europe. In common with Denmark, we have a deregulated labour market. We may have different views about social provision, but we take a similar approach in respect of regulation in the labour market.
The socialist paradises that Opposition Members draw to our attention seem to find it difficult to provide employment opportunities for as large a proportion of their work forces—and especially for women—as we in Britain are able to provide. In the debates that are now taking place in the Social Affairs Council and elsewhere, it is evident that our European partners are coming to recognise the importance of regulation in the destruction of job opportunities—a recognition that is singularly absent from the contributions of Opposition Members.
Hon. Members cannot say, on the one hand, that they wish to see more opportunities for women to work and thereby contribute to our economy and, on the other hand, that they are prepared for whatever burdens on business are involved in the employment of those women. What they propose would deprive women of opportunity, just as has happened in Europe. It is no coincidence that the countries cited as examples to be followed have not been able to achieve the employment and job opportunities that Britain has achieved.

Ms. Quin: The Minister may have given the wrong
impression about Denmark, which has a Government whose views have much more in common with those of the Labour party than with those of the British Government. The current Danish presidency of the European Community particularly wants progress to be made on many of the social directives that the British Government say will put additional burdens on business; thus, it is hardly right for the Minister to claim Denmark as an ally.

Mr. Forsyth: I was not claiming Denmark as an ally; I was merely making the point that the Danish labour market is not regulated to the extent that the hon. Lady


advocates. If she is saying that the Danish Government are about to embark on that course, I make a prediction: Denmark will not be alongside Britain at the top of the league in terms of the provision of employment opportunities for people of both sexes. The policies that Opposition Members advocate would destroy jobs—a fact that is becoming increasingly understood throughout the Community.

Ms Eagle: Does the Minister agree that, in almost all cases one can think of, men too are responsible for the birth of children? A woman' capacity to give birth should not be regarded as some kind of extra cost that she takes into the workplace—a cost that makes firms disinclined to employ her. Reasonable maternity provision should be associated with extended paternity provision; in that way, the costs could be shared between the genders, within the family, and employers would not be encouraged to regard the woman as a walking womb that imposes extra costs.

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the hon. Lady on her biological points, but not on her labour market points. She must understand that it is not discriminatory to say that we must be careful about the costs that are imposed on employers. The hon. Lady's solution would involve more costs through the provision of paternity leave, but those costs would have to be borne by employers. Employers make their money by selling goods and services. If their goods and services are no longer competitively priced, employment opportunities are destroyed. There is a balance to be struck.
In suggesting that the Government are putting business before babies, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) ruined the quite good reputation that I thought he was building up following his service on the Standing Committee, where he seemed to be a thoughtful person who added a great deal to our debates. His description of a measure that provides a right to 14 weeks' maternity leave, with entitlement to all the normal benefits of contracts of employment, apart from wages or salary, as well as comprehensive protection against dismissal or unfair selection for redundancy on maternity-related grounds and new rights for women who have to be suspended from work on maternity-related health and safety grounds, is absurd. To say that this is putting bosses before babies is so ridiculous that I can only imagine that the hon. Gentleman does not really think it but put it in a press release to his local newspaper—or perhaps there is some other, equally fatuous, reason for his coming out with such nonsense.

Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister for giving me an idea. I have not yet put this in a press release, but I think I shall now do so.
If the Government had listened more carefully to the advice of many professional organisation—particularly the Maternity Alliance—they could have gone much further without imposing any significant additional costs on employers. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) made the point in the context of the Federation of Small Businesses. Against that background, the Minister's remarks are churlish.

Mr. Forsyth: I should not be at all concerned if the hon. Gentleman were to issue such a silly press release. It might

help to achieve the result that we should have had at the polls last year—the election of Mr. Andrew Pearce. A few more daft statements of that type will see the hon. Gentleman on his way out of the House.

Mr. Burden: I should like to press the Minister on the issue of costs. I shall try to avoid using the word "burden", but I may not succeed. The hon. Gentleman prayed Denmark in aid with regard to regulation. He probably knows that Denmark offers 28 weeks' maternity leave on 90 per cent. of salary. If the Minister regards that as a deregulated market, his view is different from mine. If he wishes to avoid the imposition of an excessive "burden" —I have used the word—on businesses but accepts the need to ensure decent maternity rights, he must accept also that the state should ensure decent levels of statutory provision. Would not that be better than cutting provision for working women?

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is getting frightfully muddled. He is confusing regulation of the labour market with benefits. We are not dicussing benefits, which are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. What the hon. Gentleman has said about the provision of welfare services in Denmark is quite right. That is why Denmark has very high levels of taxation.
I was not making the point that Denmark is an ally; I was simply pointing out something that Opposition Members do not seem to recognise—that, comparatively speaking, a very high proportion of our population are in work. Let hon. Members consider countries—such as Spain, whose unemployment percentage is almost twice ours—that have embraced the minimum wage and all the other social protection policies so beloved of Opposition Members.
Of course Conservatives are committed to the provision of a fair deal for employees, but they are not prepared to accept advice that would put people on the dole. If people were unemployed, they would not have the benefit of the legislation that we have brought before the House over the past 14 years.
The hon. Members for Northfield and for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said some very odd things. The hon. Lady said that no one could disagree with seven days' notice, yet the hon. Member for Gateshead began her speech by telling us that Opposition Members would vote against the amendment. As the hon. Lady has said that she could not possibly disagree with that, I expect to see her vote with the Government in the Division Lobby. The hon. Member for Northfield said that he did not imagine that anyone would not give notice; presumably he will be in the Division Lobby with us as well.

Ms Eagle: If the Minister had listened more carefully to the overall thrust of my remarks, he would not be quoting half-sentences out of context and he might have picked up that I said that the amendment dealt with a fairly trivial matter that happened on only a few occasions. Other matters affecting the health of mothers and babies are more serious and much more common, but the Government have seen fit not to deal with those. The thrust of my speech was that we should spend more time addressing the real issues rather than spend time on relatively trivial matters.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady has not added to what I have said. She said that the matter was trivial and that no


one could disagree with seven days' notice. Now she says that she will vote against what she agrees is a reasonable provision because it is not something else. That is an extraordinary basis on which to vote down a perfectly sensible amendment.

Ms Eagle: It is tactical.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady says that it is tactical. Her constituents will be astonished if they find that her voting record on amendments or other legislation is based not on what is in them but on what she thinks should be in them. That is absurd. If that is the hon. Lady's best argument to justify her speeches, she had better get herself a new research assistant.

5 pm

Mr. Burden: I shall intervene before the Minister gets too carried away by what he perceives to be Opposition contradictions. In Committee, Conservative Members voted against amendments to ensure that women had clear rights not to be subjected to action by employers if they sought time off for ante-natal care and relaxation classes. Those hon. Members said that that happens anyway, but there is clear evidence from tribunal decisions that it does not. Conservative Members are throwing stones from glass houses.

Mr. Forsyth: I did not entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point. My assessment of what he said is that he could not imagine that anyone would not give notice and that he would support the amendment.

Mr. Burden: I said that I could not imagine many women not giving notice. I then gave the hypothetical situation of a woman who does not give notice to her employer but returns unannounced to work, demanding her job from that moment. The net cost of that to the employer would be a few days' pay while the temporary employee was still there. I contrasted the Government's concern for the cost of that few days' pay with the extent to which they are prepared to amend the Bill to show a lack of concern for women who are denied access to decent child care, are unable to breast-feed their babies for long enough and face all the other problems associated with the fact that there is no maternity leave of 18 weeks.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. He disagrees with the Government about the extent to which the protection should be extended. However, if he votes against the amendment, he will look ridiculous, because the amendment says that there should be seven days' notice. The hon. Gentleman gaily writes off a week's pay for a temporary worker as it if were of little consequence. That betrays the fact that he has never had to run a company or a small business and does not realise that such sums are often the difference between profit and loss. They also make a difference to growth of employment and employment opportunities. As we say in Scotland, "Many a mickle maks a muckle." The hon. Gentleman should be more careful with other people's money.

Ms Quin: I should not like the Minister to misunderstand our reason for voting against the amendment. As I have explained, the amendment adds a rule, an extra complexity, to an already complex system. From the beginning, we have argued for a comprehensive

overhaul and simplification of the system of maternity leave. We are using the amendment as an example of the complexities that we have argued against all along.
The Minister has done little to justify the amendment. He has not said how many people will be affected by it, nor has he spoken about the number of people who were consulted before the amendment was tabled. If he could give us more information about that and say that he will look at the overall system of maternity leave with a view to making it much more simple, along the lines that we have suggested, that would be something else.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for contradicting her hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey, who said that no one could disagree with seven days' notice. She was clearly wrong, because the hon. Member for Gateshead, East obviously disagrees with it. She says that it unnecessarily complicates the legislation. Following a commitment to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East, we tabled an amendment on Report to give women the choice of sick leave rather than maternity leave if they were absent between the 11th and the sixth week of the expected week of childbirth.
Again at the hon. Lady's request, I tabled an amendment to provide four weeks' extra protection against maternity-related dismissal in cases where a medically certified sickness prevents women from returning to work at the end of maternity leave. The hon. Lady did not urge me not to do that on the ground that it complicated the provisions, as it does. However, it is not a question of whether it complicates the provisions. We want a system that is workable. The legislation may be complex, but the position of the employer and the employee will be perfectly straightforward.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East seems to apply one argument when it suits her and another when it suits people who are making representations. When the hon. Lady pressed me to table the amendments, she did not urge me to rush out and consult everybody. She wanted me to agree in Committee to consider the matter and table amendments at an early stage. She urged us to make those amendments in respect of the additional month after the end of the period that would be available for someone who was suffering from pregnancy-related sickness.
The CBI and others expressed reservations about those amendments. I have tabled a perfectly reasonable amendment, and the hon. Lady's colleagues have said that no one could disagree with it. However, because it has come from the CBI and is subject to exactly the same process as her amendments, she criticises us for not conducting proper consultation.
We are a listening Government. We listened to the arguments and tabled amendments in the light of discussions at every stage. The amendments will result in substantial extra benefits for women who become pregnant while they are still at work. Opposition Members cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that it is a good measure and fulfils the Government's manifesto commitment.
The hon. Members for Northfield and for Wallasey said that the Government had abstained on the vote on the European directive. We abstained because we thought that it was being issued on an inappropriate treaty base. It is extraordinary that Opposition Members should question our enthusiasm for the directive as adopted because we abstained on the issue of the treaty base. My right hon.
Friend the then Secretary of State for Employment moved heaven and earth in the presidency to conclude the Council's deliberations following the intervention of the European Parliament. That Parliament tried to overturn an agreed position by the Council of Ministers, thus risking the destruction of the directive itself. It was thanks to the Government's efforts in the presidency that the directive was brought into force. Opposition Members suggested that the Labour party in the European Parliament carried the day; in fact, it was the European Parliament, and the conflict that arose between it and the Council of Ministers, that put the directive at risk.

Ms Eagle: The Minister has just explained why the Government chose to abstain, although they really agreed with all the directive's provisions. Was that a tactical decision?

Mr. Forsyth: If the hon. Lady follows such matters closely, she will know that we abstained on the working time directive. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, we did not accept the treaty base, and we shall be challenging the directive in the European Court. When we believe that the treaty base is wrong, we shall abstain. The hon. Lady clearly does not pay careful attention to these matters.
The position on the EC pregnant workers directive was made clear. A common position text was agreed in December last year; it was originally produced by the Dutch presidency, because the Commission's original proposal was unacceptable to the great majority of member states. The treaty base, which we challenged, provided for qualified majority voting, not unanimity, and the United Kingdom was never in a position to threaten a veto—if that is what the hon. Member for Wallasey was implying. Ultimately, the United Kingdom secured agreement through its presidency; that is why the directive applies throughout Europe. The legislation is before the House because we had made a manifesto commitment to present such measures. We have been as good as our manifesto commitment and we were elected to implement it.

Mr. Burden: Can we be clear about the nature of the disagreements that we are discussing?

Mr. Deputh Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Not unless they are related to the amendment.

Mr. Burden: I am sure that they are, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the ground that the Minister has been referring to them himself—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was about to call the Minister to order.

Mr. Forsyth: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was misled by Opposition Members, who made scurrilous remarks about the Government while you were not in the Chair, and thus unable to remind them of the matter under discussion. I hasten to add that I am making no criticism of Madam Speaker.
Rather than proceeding further with my speech, I invite the House to endorse the amendment. It is perfectly reasonable, as Opposition Members have said. I look forward to seeing the hon. Members for Northfield and for Wallasey in the Aye Lobby.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 42, line 40, at end insert—

("Requirement to inform employer of return during maternity leave period.

.—(1) An employee who intends to return to work earlier than the end of her maternity leave period shall give to her employer not less than seven days notice of the date on which she intends to return.

(2) If an employee returns to work as mentioned in subsection (I) without notifying her employer of her intention to do so or without giving him the notice required by that subsection her employer shall be entitled to postpone her return to a date such as will secure, subject to subsection (3), that he has seven days notice of her return.

(3) An employer is not entitled under subsection (2) to postpone an employee's return to work to a date after the end of her maternity leave period.

(4) If an employee who has been notified under subsection (2) that she is not to return to work before the date specified by her employer does return to work before that date the employer shall be under no contractual obligation to pay her remuneration until the date specified by him as the date on which she may return.")—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 238.

Division No. 298]
[5.13 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Churchill, Mr


Aitken, Jonathan
Clappison, James


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Amess, David
Coe, Sebastian


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Atkins, Robert
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cormack, Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Cran, James


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bellingham, Henry
Day, Stephen



Bendall, Vivian
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Devlin, Tim


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dickens, Geoffrey


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dicks, Terry


Body, Sir Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Booth, Hartley
Dover, Den


Boswell, Tim
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dunn, Bob


Bowis, John
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dykes, Hugh


Brandreth, Gyles
Eggar, Tim


Brazier, Julian
Elletson, Harold


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evennett, David


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Burt, Alistair
Fabricant, Michael


Butler, Peter
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butterfill, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carrington, Matthew
Forth, Eric


Carttiss, Michael
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Cash, William
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Chapman, Sydney
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger






French, Douglas
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gallie, Phil
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gardiner, Sir George
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Merchant, Piers


Garnier, Edward
Milligan, Stephen


Gillan, Cheryl
Mills, Iain


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moate, Sir Roger


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Gorst, John
Moss, Malcolm


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Needham, Richard


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Grylls, Sir Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hague, William
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Norris, Steve


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hampson, Dr Keith
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hannam, Sir John
Ottaway, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Page, Richard


Harris, David
Paice, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nick
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hawksley, Warren
Pawsey, James


Hayes, Jerry
Pickles, Eric


Heald, Oliver
Porter, David (Waveney)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Hicks, Robert
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Richards, Rod


Horam, John
Riddick, Graham


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Robathan, Andrew


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)



Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Sackville, Tom


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shersby, Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sims, Roger


Knapman, Roger
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Soames, Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spink, Dr Robert


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spring, Richard


Legg, Barry
Sproat, Iain


Leigh, Edward
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)



Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lightbown, David
Stephen, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stern, Michael


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stewart, Allan


Lord, Michael
Streeter, Gary


Luff, Peter
Sumberg, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sweeney, Walter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sykes, John


MacKay, Andrew
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maclean, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Madel, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Thomason, Roy


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marlow, Tony
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thurnham, Peter





Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Whitney, Ray


Tracey, Richard
Whittingdale, John


Trend, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Trotter, Neville
Willetts, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wilshire, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Watts, John
Mr. Irvine Patnick and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Timothy Wood.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dewar, Donald


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dixon, Don


Ainger, Nick
Dobson, Frank


Allen, Graham
Donohoe, Brian H.


Alton, David
Dowd, Jim


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Eagle, Ms Angela


Armstrong, Hilary
Eastham, Ken


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Enright, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Austin-Walker, John
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Barnes, Harry
Fatchett, Derek


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Battle, John
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bayley, Hugh
Fisher, Mark


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Flynn, Paul


Beggs, Roy
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bell, Stuart
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Foster, Don (Bath)


Benton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Bermingham, Gerald
Fyfe, Maria


Berry, Dr. Roger
Galbraith, Sam


Blair, Tony
Galloway, George


Blunkett, David
Gapes, Mike


Boyce, Jimmy
Garrett, John


Boyes, Roland
George, Bruce


Bradley, Keith
Gerrard, Neil


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Godsiff, Roger


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Gordon, Mildred


Burden, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Byers, Stephen
Graham, Thomas


Caborn, Richard
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Callaghan, Jim
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gunnell, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hain, Peter


Canavan, Dennis
Hall, Mike


Cann, Jamie
Hanson, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Henderson, Doug


Chisholm, Malcolm
Heppell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hoey, Kate


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coffey, Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Connarty, Michael
Hoyle, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cryer, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Ingram, Adam


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Dafis, Cynog
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Darling, Alistair
Jamieson, David


Davidson, Ian
Janner, Greville


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Denham, John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)






Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jowell, Tessa
Purchase, Ken


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Quin, Ms Joyce


Keen, Alan
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Randall, Stuart


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Raynsford, Nick


Khabra, Piara S.
Reid, Dr John


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rendel, David


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kirkwood, Archy
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Leighton, Ron
Rogers, Allan


Litherland, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Rooney, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Rowlands, Ted


Loyden, Eddie
Ruddock, Joan


Lynne, Ms Liz
Salrnond, Alex



McAllion, John
Sedgemore, Brian


McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry


McCartney, Ian
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKelvey, William
Short, Clare


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan


McLeish, Henry
Skinner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McNamara, Kevin
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Madden, Max
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mahon, Alice
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Mandelson, Peter
Soley, Clive


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Spellar, John


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Martlew, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Maxton, John
Stevenson, George


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Milburn, Alan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Miller, Andrew
Tipping, Paddy


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Trimble, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Turner, Dennis


Morgan, Rhodri
Tyler, Paul


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Wallace, James


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walley, Joan


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mudie, George
Wareing, Robert N


Mullin, Chris
Welsh, Andrew


Murphy, Paul
Wicks, Malcolm


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Wigley, Dafydd


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


O'Hara, Edward
Winnick, David


Olner, William
Wise, Audrey


O'Neill, Martin
Worthington, Tony


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wray, Jimmy


Patchett, Terry
Wright, Dr Tony


Pike, Peter L.
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pope, Greg



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Noes:


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Mr. Cordon McMaster and


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Prescott, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 26 to 28 agreed to.

New Clause

Lords amendment: No. 29—Entitlement to itemised pay settlement—

(". After section 146(4) of the 1978 Act (provisions disapplied in relation to employment below minimum number of hours weekly) there shall be inserted—

"(4A) Subject to subsection (4B), subsection (4) shall have effect as respects section 8 subject to the following modifications, namely—

(a) the substitution of a reference to eight hours weekly for the reference to sixteen hours weekly, and

(b) the omission of the words "Subject to subsection (5), (6) and (7)",

(4B) Subsection (4A) shall not apply in relation to employment if, at the relevant date, the number of employees employed by the employer, added to the number employed by any associated employer, is less than twenty.

(4C) For the purposes of subsection (4B) "relevant date" means the date on which any payment of wages or salary is made to an employee in respect of which he would, apart from subsection (4B), have the right to an itemised pay statement."")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With this it will be convenient also to discuss Lords amendment No. 41.

Ms Quin: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a) leave out subsection (4B).
This is an important amendment and we will seek to divide the House on it, as it seeks to establish an important right for many part-time workers who will not otherwise be covered by the welcome concession by the Government.
The amendment concerns the right of employees to receive an itemised pay statement. Many of us feel that that is a basic right for all people in employment. However, until the Government agree to amend the Bill, employees who work for between eight hours and 16 hours a week have to work for the same employer for five years before they have the right to an itemised pay statement. We find it quite amazing that some people have to work for one employer for that length of time before they can enjoy what most of us would consider a basic and necessary right.
We are glad that, in order to respond to concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government have agreed to extend the right to an itemised pay statement to many part-time workers who work for between eight and 16 hours per week. The Lords amendment excludes part-time workers working between eight and 16 hours in firms with fewer than 20 employees. We feel strongly that that rather large derogation from the new rule is unjustified, so we have tabled our amendment to do away with it.
The arguments advanced by the Minister in the other place in favour of the amendment were similar to those that I would put forward in favour of our amendment, which extends that right even further. In the other place, the Minister said that employees should have the right to know how their pay is made up, with which I am sure my hon. Friends agree strongly. But we do not see why that right should be denied to workers in firms with fewer than 20 employees.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the hon. Lady agree that the majority of difficult contractual disputes between employers and employees arise in smaller firms, particularly those with half a dozen to a dozen employees, where the hours of work may not be fully noted and where the conditions may not be fully recorded because they vary from time to time? Does she further agree that the Lords amendment will remove a necessary protection from a large number of workers if the figure is as high as 20?

Ms Quin: I agree with the points made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, to which I shall come later. The evidence available to us suggests that what the hon. and learned Gentleman says is right and that the greatest


difficulties have arisen for workers in small firms who have wanted itemised pay statements but have been unable to obtain them.
Unfortunately, there is much evidence that the denial of itemised pay statements to employees is part and parcel of an attempt by employers criminally to defraud the Treasury by not registering employees properly for national insurance purposes. Therefore, they have been happy to deny their employees this right. Unless employees caught in that situation have written evidence of deductions from their pay, they might even be thought to be colluding with the employer in such frauds and malpractices. That is another important reason why we want to extend the right to an itemised pay statement as widely as possible.
There is no doubt that having the right to an itemised pay statement would simplify the process of resolving disputes over pay and deductions which can arise, causing problems for employers and employees. In addition, the right to an itemised pay statement can be crucial to an employee's attempt to gain benefits to which he is entitled. Without such written proof in the form of an itemised pay statement, an employee may have great difficulty in proving his entitlement to benefits which may enable him to make ends meet. We are talking not about something theoretical, but about something that is of immense practical help to people if the system is made to work properly.
It is also important for employees to have written proof of their pay—and conditions—if they transfer to another employer who asks for such information. I should also mention the value of such a system to the Child Support Agency that the Government have set up. There again, a person may need proof of his or her financial situation in the form of an itemised pay statement in order to support his or her case.
It is odd that the Government should be so keen to ensure that the check-off arrangement should be spelt out in seemingly endless detail, as they clearly were in the early parts of the Bill, but are not prepared to allow every employee the basic right to an itemised pay statement. Surely, if the Government are so keen on allowing employees to see what deductions are made for trade union subscriptions, they should also be keen for employers to show employees the state of their pay and the full range of deductions.
Those are important matters, to which, to be fair to the Government, the Minister in another place referred, but, having made those important points, he agreed, surprisingly, to deny so many people the right to an itemised pay statement.
The Government have come out with some curious arguments for not wishing to extend that right to all people, even in small companies. The argument about costs has been put forward, but I do not know whether the Government will be able to persuade us today any more easily than the Minister in the other place was able to persuade the Members there. He singularly failed to convince them of what he was saying about costs. The cost of giving employees an itemised statement may be slight. The Minister in the other place agreed that various standard proformas were available, making it easy for employers to complete such requirement.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: During the discussion on the previous set of amendments, the hon. Lady criticised me

for bringing forward an amendment without having consulted widely. Does she not think that it would be right for the Government, having consulted on this matter, to take account of the representations that we have received from organisations such as the Forum of Private Business?

Ms Quin: I hope that the Minister will consider the information and evidence available to him from all quarters. We have received interesting information from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and organisations such as the Fawcett Society. They have talked to employers in some detail in order to try to work out the costs involved.
They concluded that many employers can produce itemised pay statements without any difficulty whatever, that they can be absorbed into existing administrative costs and that the booklets of proforma statements, which can be easily completed, would make that an easy job for small businesses. I hope that the Minister will address that evidence, as well as other representations made to him. I can only go on the representations that have been made to us, which have all been in favour of extending that right to many, if not all, employees.
It is not only Opposition Members who are concerned about that issue. In Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) spoke first about extending that right to part-time workers—those who work between eight and 16 hours per week. We agreed strongly with the points that she made, and it was partly as a result of her representations that the Government tabled this amendment. However, I am not sure that the hon. Lady would support the Minister in this derogation for companies with fewer than 20 employees.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: indicated assent.

Ms Quin: The Minister is nodding. In that case I am disappointed with the hon. Lady, because it goes against many of the arguments that she advanced in Committee, where she spoke of the individuals about whom we are concerned in this amendment—those working in small companies that may exploit them by not giving them this information.
I well remember the Minister in Committee making one of his revealing jokes. He said that there seemed to be cross-party agreement about the amendment, which probably meant that it was wrong. That tells us something about the Minister's attitude. I urge him to take into consideration the comments made not only from this side of the House but by Conservative Members in Committee, as well as the wealth of opinion from the Fawcett Society and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, to which I pay tribute for its work on that issue.
I refer also to the views of organisations such as the townswomen's guilds, the National Federation of Women's Institutes and the United Kingdom Federation of Business and Professional Women, which all support the argument that we are advancing today. Those organisations carry considerable weight, not least in Conservative constituencies. The Minister ought to take that into account, consult those organisations, and learn their views. They feel strongly that many employees are being denied a basic right that most people would consider normal and natural in a civilised society.
I referred to evidence collected by various organisations that some employers who are trying to defraud the authorities deny employees the right to an itemised pay


statement. NACAB states that many employers do not issue employees with itemised pay statements, and that there is often doubt whether the employer is paying tax and national insurance contributions on behalf of the employee.
A CAB in Essex reported that employees at one establishment were paid in cash, and handed back an amount to cover their tax and national insurance—but had no evidence whether those moneys were being passed on to the appropriate authorities. No itemised pay statement was issued, and the employer "turned nasty" when asked for one. The CAB's client found another job and asked for her P45. Instead of receiving an updated P45, that which she had originally given the first employer was returned to her—which seems to prove that that employer was trying to defraud the system and to avoid the regulations covering both employers and employees.
A CAB in Warwickshire reported a client whose wages were paid partly by cheque and partly in cash, to enable the employer to default on national insurance and PAYE. The bureau explained that, as the client lived in a tied cottage, she was very reluctant to complain, because obviously not only her job but also her home was at risk.
A CAB in Shropshire commented:
It is often only when employees leave their employment that they discover that their employer has not been deducting or paying over PAYE, income tax and national insurance contributions.
It is extremely important for the right to an itemised pay statement to be widely available, so that attempted fraud can be overcome.
The right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) mentioned the number of people who might be affected. The Government are excluding many by the derogation that the amendment introduces. Figures supplied by the Library suggest that 7 million employees work in businesses having fewer than 20 employees—about 31 per cent. of all those in work. A number work for only between eight and 16 hours a week. I do not have Government figures, but I believe that hundreds of thousands of workers would be affected by the Government's proposal. I should be grateful for any figures that the Minister can give.
I understand that about 780,000 people work more than eight hours but fewer than 16 hours a week in companies employing fewer than 20 people. That substantial figure represents the number who will fall foul of the Government's amendment. We ask the Minister to consider those 780,000 people and their right to an itemised pay statement.
5.45 pm
The Minister may argue that there is nothing to stop employers issuing itemised pay statements. That is true, but we are concerned about employers who do not observe that practice. If many firms are already able to issue such statements, we see no reason why others should not he able similarly to comply.
We are concerned also about employees who work fewer than eight hours a week. Although we have not tabled an amendment on that specific issue, it touches on the Government amendment under consideration. We see no justification for the eight-hour cut-off limit. In Committee, the Minister said that it would be inconvenient for employers to issue pay statements to

those who only work two or three hours a week, but I ask the Minister to view the matter from the employee's point of view.
An employee may work fewer than eight hours in one job but additional hours in another job. He or she may need to prove total entitlement to certain benefits, want to transfer to another employer, or meet all the other possible scenarios that I mentioned earlier.
Many people in Britain today work in unsatisfactory part-time jobs. Sometimes, they have two or three such jobs—and may ultimately find it difficult to claim pension or other entitlements if they are unable to prove that they have worked as many hours as they have.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Lady suggests that anyone in Britain who employs a cleaning lady, gardener, or someone else to do the odd job should be required—regardless of the amount of time worked—to produce an itemised pay statement as a matter of law. Is that her proposal?

Ms Quin: Employees, no matter in what capacity they work, should receive an itemised pay statement if they want one. Under the Government's rules, they will have no such entitlement. The Government do not understand the difficulties confronting many people in Britain today who have been casualised by Government employment policies. They work week in, week out in unsatisfactory conditions of employment, and then discover that the hours worked count for very little in respect of their benefits and pension rights, and that there is little to which to look forward in the future. They are therefore twice handicapped.
I beg the Minister to examine more carefully than he seems prepared to do some of the dire working conditions that obtain in Britain today, of which the denial of an itemised pay statement is part and parcel. It may seem a small part, but it is an important element in an unsatisfactory equation.
By removing the derogation for firms employing 20 or fewer employees and the time limit, the Minister will take a small but significant step towards improving the lot of part-time and temporary workers.
We are concerned that part-time workers appear to have such a bad deal. In order to be entitled to many employment rights, they have to work for one employer for five years, which, in effect, denies about two thirds of part-time workers any employment rights at all. It is an absolute scandal.
Other European countries do not make the same rigid distinctions between full-time and part-time workers; nor do they distinguish between different types of part-time work. For example; they do not distinguish between part-time work lasting 16 hours or eight hours, a distinction which is so unfavourable for many part-time workers in Britain.
The Government should consider far more seriously extending full-time employment rights to part-time workers. They sometimes accuse us of being anti part-time workers. We are not, but we are anti part-time work in appalling conditions. We want part-time work to be a tremendous opportunity for women and men, but unfortunately it is not: it is merely a way of exploiting them and giving them fewer employment rights than their full-time counterparts. We are not opposed to part-time work—we are very much in favour of it—but we do not


want it to be used to penalise people for the rest of their working lives, which is what appears to be happening under the system approved by the Government.
I refer the Minister of State to the excellent report produced some time ago by the Committee which considers European legislation in another place. It is a very good report, which pours cold water on the Government's claims about the extra costs incurred in extending many employment rights to part-time workers. If the Minister studies the information in detail, he will see that a very impressive case was made for extending such rights to part-time workers.
Indeed, a survey referred to in the Committee's report showed that less than 1 per cent. of firms which were contacted quoted poorer employment rights as the reason for employing part-time workers. Generally, there seemed to be a great lack of conviction in the Government's case that extending even basic rights to part-time workers would cost the earth. The evidence for the Government's argument is patchy, but the evidence that British part-time workers are getting a poor deal is not patchy but overwhelming.
I urge the Minister to do what he has often said he favours, and encourage quality part-time work by accepting the ideas that we have proposed in all the debates. As a modest beginning, he could welcome the amendment and thus allow those who want an itemised pay statement to have it. It is a basic right, which should no longer be denied.

Mr. Alex Carlile: My comments relate to the 20-employee limit. I am surprised that the Government have chosen such a high figure. It is almost inconceivable that an employer who has 19, 15 or even a dozen employees could remain in business if he was incapable of filling in a small form setting out the items that comprise an employee's pay. It does not require sophisticated machinery, a chartered accountant or a qualified bookkeeper to do so; it requires only a duplicate pad on which the employer's bookkeeper—who is often not qualified—jots down for the benefit of the employee the number of hours worked, the hourly rate for the work, any overtime, and any other items which make up his pay. If an employer is not capable of carrying out such rudimentary book work, it is unlikely that he will stay in business very long.
As I am sire the Government have learnt in the past three years in particular, it is often small firms which go bankrupt or into liquidation because they are incapable of completing their books properly. The resulting debt is often crippling for the victims. All hon. Members are aware of small businesses in their constituencies whose proprietors have faced bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy because of the inefficiency of other small firms and organisations purchasing from them.
I would suggest that modest bookkeeping requirements, including the provision of itemised pay statements, help towards the necessary measure of efficiency. I do not suggest that the requirement should be placed on the very smallest employers, those employing two, three, or perhaps fewer than half a dozen employees. In that respect, I take a slightly different view from the Labour party, but an employer who employs more than half a dozen people can be regarded as significant in an employment market where such a large proportion of working people are employed in small firms.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying. He agrees with the Government that there should be an exemption for small firms, but says that it should apply to those employing six rather than 20 people. The Liberal party has not tabled an amendment to reflect that view. I should have thought that, if the hon. and learned Gentleman believed that the figure should be six rather than 20, he would have been able to make a case for that idea and tabled an amendment. What does he expect the Government to do in response to his representations, given the fact that we have reached this stage in our consideration of the Bill?

Mr. Carlile: I do not harbour the illusion that the hon. Gentleman would have urged his right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for such an amendment had I tabled it. It is for the Government to make the regulations. They are well aware of representations that have been made. [ Interruption.] If the Minister will listen for a moment, I repeat that the Government are well aware of the all-party representations made on this issue in Committee.
As we have been reminded, it was the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), who is sitting behind the Minister, who urged on the Committee—indeed, who assisted Labour Members in urging on the Committee—an amendment that was incorporated in part in Lords amendment No. 29. It is somewhat surprising that the hon. Lady now seems to accept that the 20-employee limit is appropriate. When the Government fix an appropriate level, they should act in the interests of both employers and employees.
In an intervention, the Minister of State mentioned the Forum of Private Business. I have considerable regard for that organisation, which provides useful information to hon. Members, enabling us to keep abreast of the requirements and concerns of small employers in particular. However, the organisation is not always right. Of course, the way in which it collects its material is founded on the sending of questionnaires for which it devises the questions.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: rose—

Mr. Carlile: I shall give way in a moment.
As a result, the information provided by the questionnaires may not always be entirely reliable in considering such issues. Does the Minister still want me to give way?

Mr. Forsyth: I will just say that there were no Liberal representatives on the Committee, but, had the hon. and learned Gentleman had the pleasure of serving on it, as many hon. Members present today did, he would know that we listened to the Opposition's arguments and accepted many amendments.

Mr. Miller: Many?

Mr. Forsyth: Many. My point is that at no stage have the Liberals tabled an amendment suggesting that six rather than 20 would be the appropriate limit. I am rather surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman talk down the importance of representations made by the Forum of Private Business, but we had similar representations from the Confederation of British Industry.

Mr. Carlile: I was telling the Minister that it is surprising to hear that the hon. Member for Tiverton, who


in Committee apparently asked for something rather more extensive, now seems to accept the rather grudging 20-employee limit. That point was entirely fairly made.

Mr. Forsyth: rose—

6 pm

Mr. Carlile: I shall not give way to the Minister again, because we do not want a ping-pong debate.
I regret that the Government have not dealt with the amendment in the spirit that I understood from reading the Committee debate—I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee—was the basis on which the Minister responded to that debate. In response to his claim that I tried to talk down the Forum of Private Business, I add that I did the precise opposite. I was at pains to point out that the information that that organisation provided was helpful. Nevertheless, it is not always right, and in my view it was not right on that occasion.
There is another practical aspect of the 20-employee limit that the Government should consider seriously. Disputes that arise about terms and conditions of employment often relate to hours worked, and especially to whether national insurance contributions should have been paid, or whether the full tax due under the PAYE arrangements has been paid. As the Minister intervened in my speech, I should be grateful if he would take the trouble to listen for the next two or three minutes. I was addressing a comment to him in the hope that he might respond to it when he replies to the debate.
As the Minister knows, the disputes that arise between employers and employees relate to a contract between the two parties. An employee is often at a considerable disadvantage if he has no documentary evidence of the terms and conditions of his employment, and especially of the hours worked in a particular week or other period. If an employer chooses to act dishonestly—he may well choose to do so if the issue is whether national insurance contributions or tax should have been paid—he can enter false particulars in his records at the time when the dispute arises. I am afraid that my experience over more than 20 years as a practitioner in the courts is that, unfortunately, that is just the sort of thing that happens from time to time. Of course, most employers are completely honest, but the employers with whom employees have the greatest difficulty are often those who are not.
When, for example, an employee comes to his Member of Parliament and says that he is in dispute with his former employer, who should have paid national insurance contributions, the first thing that the conscientious Member of Parliament asks to see is documentary evidence of the employment. If the employee is not entitled to an itemised pay statement, even when he has been working as many as 16 hours a week, he is at a disadvantage. This can lead to a contest between the oral evidence of the employee and the not always entirely accurate or honest written evidence of the employer. Such disputes take up much time. They come before small claims courts regularly and take up the time of citizens advice bureaux. It is notable that the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux takes precisely the same view as I.
Why are the Government not prepared to impose on businesses that are not the smallest the relatively minor

requirement to provide a weekly or monthly statement of particulars for employees? It is not asking much. I ask the Minister to explain the reasoning behind the views expressed by the CBI to which he referred. We have not heard the reasoning in the debate so far and there cannot be many CBI members who either could or would wish to take advantage of the distinction that the Government, with the arbitrary cut-off limit of 20 employees, seek to draw between large and small businesses.
If the Minister is unwilling to change his mind, I ask him at least to give the House an assurance. My request is supported by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, which is concerned about the issue. Will he ensure that his Department monitors the operation of the 20-employee limit? I understand that it could be altered by statutory regulations, so primary legislation would not be needed. If the Minister were prepared to monitor the operation of the limit, and if the Government found that abuse was taking place, it would be possible to introduce regulations to reduce the limit. I hope that the Minister will find that to be a reasonable approach.

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: I rise briefly to encourage the House to support the Lords amendments and to resist the blandishments of the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin). I should declare two interests, one as a trade unionist—I am a member of Equity, enjoying what the union kindly describes as "honourable withdrawal", which I trust will continue for a full three decades—and the other as someone who is unwittingly currently taking part in an experiment on the 48-hour week, as it is 36 hours since we who serve on the Standing Committee on the Finance Bill last saw our beds.
I urge the House to support Lords amendment No. 29, because everything in it is good sense. Clearly, it reflects a recognition of the changes in the labour market—both the considerable increase in the number of women in the labour market in recent years and the great increase in part-time workers. Incidentally, I look forward to studying the book by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), as I am sure it is full of interesting information on that very topic.
The nub of the disagreement between the two sides of the House involves the 20-employee limit. The essence of what I wish to share with the House is what I have heard from employers in my constituency—yes, they are members of the Forum of Private Business. I sometimes think that Opposition Members have had little experience of running small businesses. There is no doubt that small businesses are the source of growth. Larger businesses grow from smaller businesses.

Mr. Miller: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman intends to tell us about his experience as a small business man. Does he provide itemised pay statements for the employees in the small businesses with which he has been involved?

Mr. Brandreth: Yes, indeed. That is a marvellous example of good practice, and we want to encourage it. That is why the requirement is in the Bill. But we want to get the balance right. We do not want to impose compulsorily on small businesses—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We want to encourage good practice. No doubt, in the fulness of time, more and more small businesses will provide itemised pay statements, but they do not wish to have their hands tied. This is all about getting the balance right. People asked for a listening Government and they


have got one. We listen to the small businesses and we say, "We want to do this; it is good practice. But we also want to enable you to conduct your business in the way that you think best."

Mr. Frank Field: I have been listening to the hon. Gentleman. Is there not a real weakness in his argument, in that it relies on good practice on a voluntary basis? Presumably he, as a small business man, provides itemised pay slips because he is a good business person, he has nothing to fear and he pays his national insurance contributions as he should. The worry about the voluntary system is that those who do not provide the information are those who most need to do so. Surely that is where, in any civilised society, the law has some part to play.

Mr. Brandreth: The whole idea is to extend good practice. That is what Conservative Members want, but Labour Members have made it clear that they would like workers who work fewer than eight hours to be included. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Nestor (Mr. Miller) is nodding enthusiastically at the prospect of somebody working for one or two hours a week and being entitled to an itemised pay statement. That is because Labour Members are the friends of bureaucracy and regulation and want to increase the burden. We want to encourage good practice and, at the same time, allow small businesses to work and to grow. This is a small piece of legislation, but it is vital and I thoroughly commend it to the House.

Mr. Frank Field: I want to support the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) and in so doing to add two further lines of argument.
I want to develop the line that the hon. Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) has just taken, in which he accused Labour Members of paying no attention to what is happening in the labour market. The changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East advanced were based on what is happening in that market. An increasing number of people are active in the Labour party —the labour market, rather; thank God the two are not comparable, or the economy would be totally down the drain—and are part of what is called the flexible labour market. If we are not to store up trouble for those people and huge bills for taxpayers later, it is important that we ensure that minimum services are given and contributions are both paid and recorded.
The argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East—that we should be concerned about both the cut-off point for employers with fewer than 20 employees and the hours cut-off point—is crucial. When we look back on our working lives, let alone those of our grandchildren, we will be amazed at the number of people who at some time worked for a few hours and at other times worked hours more like what we would call a full-time week. If, during those working lives, we are to build up contributions to the national insurance fund and, more important, as time goes by, to universalise private pension arrangements, we should ensure that all employees are safely linked in to building up wealth, from which they can draw on later in their lives.
I hope that our argument, and the amendments that we have tabled, are seen as part of a broader argument for changes in, for example, national insurance contributions. At the moment, the labour market is rigged. As Mrs.

Thatcher once said, however, "You can't buck the market." If employers' national insurance contributions are not required below £56 a week, we cannot be surprised when there is a massive extension in part-time jobs.
I hope that Labour Members will increasingly call for employers' contributions to start at the first pound of earnings—not because we want to increase the amount of money raised by national insurance contributions, but because it is important to have a level playing field, whereby employers and employees can work out how many hours of work are offered and how many hours people want to work, rather than have a financial incentive that gears job creation to part-time jobs.
If we take seriously the argument of the hon. Member for City of Chester—that we should be concerned with developments in the labour market—we will see him in our Lobby tonight. Changes in the labour market and an increase in the number of what are called "flexible workers" make our argument carry that much more force and leave the Government in some difficulty trying to defend their position.
If the Government genuinely believe in not rigging markets and in level playing fields, workers' rights should begin with the first hour of earnings. The standards that the hon. Member for City of Chester applies in his own business will, we hope, be applied by all employers. The bad employers would apply those standards because the law compels them to do so and the good employers—who, we hope, are the vast majority—would have no difficulty in fulfilling that requirement because they already do so.
6.15 pm
That is one of the arguments that I wish to advance. The other is about minimum standards. The Government have knocked away minimum standards in our society. We have seen that with the mutilation and abolition of wages councils and the abolition of the fair wages resolution and of security for people against being unfairly sacked. If I were speaking to members of the Tory party, they would have no difficulty in understanding my argument, but in the past 15 years a group of 19th-century liberals have climbed aboard the Tory party, thrown the crew overboard and steered the ship in a completely different direction.
There must be minimum standards. The body politic and the economic arrangements of a society are like the complicated human body, which needs checks and balances; throwing them away results in some very distorted positions and gross exploitation of the weakest members of the labour market. I hope that, as we think about the next election, when we recognise that we are living in an economy governed by a social market, to which we have no fundamental alternative, we make a case against the unacceptable faces of a social market economy as run by this Government.
Guaranteeing minimum standards for people at the bottom of the pile is one feature. Therefore, I very much support the arguments that were advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East. In so doing, I merely wish to correct the record, because in some debates on the Bill it has been suggested that I am against minimum wage proposals. That is untrue. I have cautioned my party about the employment consequences of a minimum wage—of setting it at an absurd level in the early stages—and about the need for it to be very low, for it to be offset by reductions in national insurance contributions,


and to link it to an industrial strategy for training and investment to increase productivity. I have not made a stand against a minimum wage, but have cautioned as to how we implement it.
If Labour is successfully to challenge the unacceptable faces of a social market economy, it must come out very clearly in favour of laying down minimum standards, not in a way that kills the goose that lays the golden egg but with the confidence of a party that knows that all these questions are matters of balance and feels that it has that balance correct. Tonight, we can take one small step against the unacceptable faces that have driven wage rates down to less than £2 for workers in the Birkenhead jobcentre. That is not acceptable. We want countermeasures to tackle that.
As we approach a much more flexible economy, it is crucial that employers do not get their employees on the cheap—that employers do not deny them their rights to have their national insurance contributions paid and to become part of a universalise provision of private pensions. We must ensure that those contributions are paid, because if we do not, and if the Government get their way, that failure will put that much extra cost on taxpayers and welfare in the future.
I hope that the Labour party increasingly accepts a reform of welfare which sees the budget being reduced because we have been so successful in knitting people into jobs and into wealth that comes from work and from owning wealth. If that happened, there would be less need for people to draw on what we have traditionally thought of as the welfare state. If that is to be our approach, the House will oppose the Government today. They are moving away from that situation and are increasingly putting the costs back on the employees, and especially those who are least able to bear that cost.
I welcome the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East to divide the House. We will divide the House tonight on an aspect of the unacceptable faces of the social market economy. Those unacceptable faces are now the big divide between the two major parties in the Chamber.

Mr. Thomas Graham: The Government's attitude never ceases to amaze me. I find it incredible that we are talking about people as if they were a motor car that was being repaired. Many hon. Members will have had their car fixed and then checked the bill. The bill is itemised, so that the customer can see how much he is being charged per hour for the fitter and the electrician and how much for oil and for the parts. It is not difficult. We live in a high-tech world where computers are an everyday thing, and where schoolkids probably know more about computers than any hon. Member.
Has any young person been asked how he feels about the proposal? The Government seem to have asked the Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses. I do not know one young person under the age of 20 who has been approached by the Government and asked about the abolition of anything that relates to young people. They have been taken out of the wage councils and have lost some of their rights to protection. There is now a suggestion that they will not get even an itemised wages slip. That is quite incredible.
Despite the problems that the country faces, the Government are spending time supporting a Lords

amendment such as this. I find that lamentable. Young people in my constituency want the right to get a job, to get training and to get a full education that will take them into a decent arena of work. Perhaps the Minister would agree with me. I know plenty of young people who would like the Minister's job, and would probably do a far better job than he does. In fact, I guarantee that nearly every 20-year-old in my constituency could do a far better job in coming forward with employment rights to suit the needs and requirements of young people than the Minister.
I am trying to use my English accent rather than my Glasgow accent so that the Minister will understand. The nitpicking of the Government is unbelievable. The Bill is about trade union reform and employment rights, and we are saying to young folk under 20 that they will not get their rights. The Government want employers not to bother telling their young employees what their deductions are. They do not want to tell the young people what they are earning. Those young people may be working for eight, 10 or 16 hours and they will not be told what they have earned.
We heard from the Government how many part-time workers are contributing to the country's economy. Are we going to treat them like a lump of stone to be shoved about, or are we going to treat them like human beings? I resent the Government treating our people like cannon fodder to be blown about and to be treated in such a fashion. The House is not talking about animals; it is talking about people. Surely our people have the right to be treated in a dignified fashion. If they work for an hour, they are entitled to know what their wages are for that hour. They are entitled to get a pay slip.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Normally, the hon. Gentleman and I get on extremely well in debates such as this. Could I draw to his attention the fact that we are discussing a Government amendment which, precisely as he asks, gives people the right to an itemised pay statement? The Opposition amendment seeks to amend our amendment to remove the limit that has been set to exclude small employers. That is the issue. I should not want the hon. Gentleman to be put in a position where Conservative Members might decide that his job could be better done by a 20-year-old as well.

Mr. Graham: I am convinced that literally hundreds of thousands of young people under the age of 20 could do a far superior job. I am here to give the House the benefit of my experience in a way that is fitting, given that my constituents sent me to this place.
Could the Minister say why the matter has been discussed with employers only? Why has it not been discussed with young people? The Government never discuss anthing with the young people of this country, and they are treated like cannon fodder. In a war such as there was in the Gulf, it would not be long before the young people were in the front line and lying down and dying for this country. The Government would demand that they go to war.
Why do not the Government recognise the right of young people to an itemised wage bill? Why should not young people see a breakdown of their pay? I know of plenty of duff employers. I know of some savage employers who have gone bankrupt and out of business. Some are hiding in Cyprus or Spain and did not pay any tax for their employees. I know some kids who are waiting


for their holiday pay. I know people who have waited years for their holiday pay because they did not get it from a bum, bad employer. I have a list of those companies as long as my arm. We can supply the Minister with the list if he wants us to.
I am sick and tired of the House debating the subject of young people without any real consideration for their thoughts. We are turning out some of the biggest bunch of old fogeys in the western world. Unfortunately, when I sit in the House, I realise that I am an old fogey along with other hon. Members. I have two young sons who do not miss me. When I come home, they ask: "When is the House going to get its act together? Why are there thousands and thousands of their pals on the dole who cannot get work and who want to work? Why are not the young people getting a proper education or proper training?"
I challenged the Minister on the question of training credits for young people. I was told that there were thousands of training credits in my area. Last night, I asked an executive of Scottish Enterprise how many folk were getting the credits. The answer was none. There were six getting credits in Dunbarton and others elsewhere in Scotland. The point is that I got bum information, which was neither suitable nor acceptable to my constituents. If the Minister can get that wrong, he can get the amendment wrong, too.
The other day I got a telephone bill from British Telecom. Have hon. Members seen it? There is an itemised bill—no problem. The customer sees that he has spent 64p here and 54p there, or talked for a minute here and one and a half minutes there. The customer can find out whether his wife has overdone the phone bill—my wife usually says that I have overdone it. If a customer goes to the grocers, or shops at Asda or Tesco, there is an iternised bill. Has the Minister ever been shopping? I go with the wife. The bill shows a pint of milk and a loaf of bread. It tells the customer that he has bought those things and gives him the price of them. There is no problem at all.
Yet the Government tell us that they are helping small business by not giving employees an itemised wages slip. Their heads are in a tin—they are off their nut. That is not the kind of progress that we need. Let us have genuine discussions about employment rights, and no nonsense wasting the time of the House.

Mr. Michael Clapham: The statutory right to an intemised pay slip is fundamental. It is something that a worker should expect when he takes employment, no matter how many hours he works. The amendment will not extend that statutory right to tens of thousands of vulnerable people.
Many, if not all, of those workers will be women who have been forced into part-time employment because of economic circumstances. They have had to take a few hours work to earn a little more money to support the family, to buy a little more for the table and to buy clothes for the children, because, generally, one person in the partnership is out of work.
In these days of mass unemployment, when jobs are hard to come by, many part-time workers will be young people who have been unable to find full-time work and have had to take the first part-time job that comes along.
The people who framed the amendment have little idea how many people might be affected. I said that tens of thousands of people will be affected. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) mentioned 780,000 people.
This morning, in its submission to the Trade and Industry Select Committee, the Federation of Small Businesses said there are as many as 4 million self-employed small business men and I million small limited companies. It said that about 97 per cent. of small businesses employ fewer than 20 people, and 91 per cent. employ fewer than 10 people. A great many of those employees will be part-time. If we multiply that figure by 10, we will not be far short of the figure that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East used—that is, 780,000.

Ms Quin: The 780,000 which my hon. Friend rightly quoted includes those in companies which employ fewer than 20 people who work more than eight hours but fewer than 16 hours. If we take into account those who work fewer than eight hours, we have a figure of 1·25 million. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; a very large number of people are affected.

Mr. Clapham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. We are talking of more than 1 million workers being affected.
Under this Government, small businesses have been treated rather shabbily. In 1992, for example, the failure rate was almost 63,000. Many employees will have claims against the small businesses that have folded. Those employees will be able to prosecute their claims, because they will have evidence that they were employed, evidence of the hours they worked, and evidence of how much they earned. Without an itemised pay slip, it is unlikely that an employee will be able to prosecute a claim.
The amendment gives a nod and a wink to employers not to keep records. The Government should make it clear that records are necessary and should be kept by small businesses. The Lords amendment is a retrograde step; I ask the House to vote against it and to support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East.

Ms Ann Coffey: No doubt the Minister will respond to our amendment by arguing that the small additional costs that might be incurred by itemising pay slips for employees in firms of fewer than 20 employees will be the straw that breaks the camel's back for some small firms, and will drive them into bankruptcy. The Minister might be interested to hear what representatives of industry, including small businesses and the Confederation of British Industry, have told the Trade and Industry Select Committee about ways of improving the competitiveness and productivity of British industry, so that the hon. Gentleman can be assured that the emphasis on cost is the least of industry's problems and that he can therefore support our amendment.
Among the problems that have been identified, particularly by small business, are the way that VAT is collected; the attitude of the banks; difficulties in obtaining loans; the tax system, and particularly how it affects small businesses; the lack of an overall structure; infrastructure, including education; and the difficulty with training and transport. This morning, the representatives who attended the Select Committee did not touch upon any costs


relating to labour. That has not been identified to us as a major problem, although representatives went on at length about some of the factors that I have drawn to the Minister's attention.
It is becoming clear that the countries that do better than us and have more productive industries than ours —for example, Japan and Germany—have a fundamentally different attitude to their employees. That is reflected in employment and trade union rights and the bargaining process in respect of wage settlements. The reason for those countries' higher productivity is that their work forces have been managed properly and involved in firms' decisions. They feel that they have a long-term future and are therefore willing to work harder for their companies. That has led to higher productivity and higher-quality goods.
That point is not difficult to understand. The Minister knows that anybody who is managed well will respond more favourably. I am sure that the Ministers whom the Prime Minister treats well behave much better than the Ministers whom he does not treat well. That is a fact of life: it is plain common sense. Indeed, this morning, the CBI acknowledged that there has been a problem with the lack of management skills in industry, and that we must involve people more. Only by doing so can we use the talents and skills of our people and stop the desperate malaise in British industry. I draw that to the Minister's attention because the issue of itemised pay slips, although small in itself, is important in recognising employees' rights.
A Conservative Member talked about the odd job of a cleaning lady. It is not an odd job at all. Without women doing those jobs, the country would collapse. The problem is that no value is placed on that work. Itemised pay slips for those workers is a way of giving the message that they are important. It is up to the Government to show leadership. If the Government do not show leadership by saying that people and their jobs are important, we cannot expect the management of British industry to give that message. The Government have a chance to give that message by supporting our amendment. Cost did not prevent the Government from asking local authorities to send out itemised poll tax bills to all residents. Local authorities are a service industry. The Government asked local authorities to do that because they thought that it was right and proper that taxpayers should be aware of what they were being asked to pay.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Lady is making the same mistake as the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham). As a result of our amendment, large employers will, for the first time, he required to give itemised pay statements to employees who work a small number of hours. What is at issue is small businesses, so an analogy with itemised statements being required by large employers such as local authorities is not a fair one.

Ms Coffey: The Minister should recall that, at the beginning of my speech, I anticipated his argument about extending that right to firms with less than 20 employees. I anticipated that his argument would relate to cost. I have not misunderstood the amendment. My point is that, if something is right and the Government think that it is right, regardless of the cost—for example, to send itemised

poll tax bills to all residents in a borough—the argument about cost is not one that the Minister can use at all because the issue is about rights. I see that the Minister now understands.
Millions of pounds have been spent on sending out glossy brochures about the citizens charter and aspects of the health service. That has cost the service industries money, but the Government did that because they thought that it was right. My point is that, if it is right to send itemised pay slips to employees, it is right to send them to all employees.
The Government have a fundamental problem in distinguishing rights from costs. There is a great strength of feeling in the United Kingdom that the contribution that people make is not valued and their rights are balanced by the Government time and time again on factors relating to cost. The contribution that people make is important, and they should not be denied basic rights simply because of the cost.

Mr. Miller: When my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) was speaking, I noticed that the Government Whip had his handkerchief out. I thought that he was bursting into tears at the thought of having to provide an itemised pay statement for his valet, or whatever.
The crux of the argument is the question: why should any worker not be entitled to an itemised pay statement? The Government bluntly said that it would be too costly. Indeed, in Committee on 14 January, the Minister of State suffered from the needle being stuck more than once, because he repeated himself three times in columns 435–36 when referring to the additional cost imposed on employers.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made an important point that followed the theme adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) in terms of legal cases. My hon. Friend referred to the evidence submitted by the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery referred to a number of legal cases in his professional background that stemmed from companies with a small number of employees.
Last night, I advised the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on an issue that affects her responsibility, which spills into this debate. It is ironic that she held the position of Secretary of State for Employment previously. It is a great pity that the Minister has chosen to ignore the evidence provided to the Committee by NACAB.
In a document sent to me today, NACAB says that evidence shows that itemised pay slips can save a lot of time later if disputes arise. That is exactly along the lines of the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. For example, if an employee thinks that an employer has not paid the correct amount, made an illegal deduction from his pay or not been paying tax, it is the experience of the NACAB that some employers clearly flout their obligations under the law by not deducting pay-as-you-earn tax and national insurance contributions. Other employers may make the deductions but not pay the money to the Inland Revenue.
In both cases, that is revenue lost to the Exchequer and deficient national insurance contribution records affect


future benefit entitlements. The National Audit Office reported that there was large-scale under-collection of national insurance contributions.
If those issues are not ones in which the Government should be interested, given the perilous state of the nation's finances, I do not know what are. It is ironic that the Government should choose to ignore that, from the Treasury point of view and that of individual citizens who are affected by some of the examples to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East referred.
There are many other examples. A citizens advice bureau in South Wales reports a client who is employed by a nursing home. Her contract states that, if her pay exceeds the lower limit for national insurance contributions, she may receive store gift vouchers, which are exempt from national insurance. That is illegal. I am not entirely sure that having a pay statement would mitigate that. but it would go a long way to helping the employee to argue her legal rights if the matter went to court.
A citizens advice bureau in Devon reports a client who was paid £23 a night to work in a residential care home, despite being told that she would be paid £24 a night. When she complained, she was told that it was to keep her payments below the national insurance level. She insisted on full payment, and her next wage packet had £6·50 deducted for national insurance contributions. As her wage was below the level for national insurance contributions, the deductions were clearly wrong. If she had had documentary proof of that in the form of an itemised pay statement, she would have been in a strong position to challenge her employer in court.
I shall give the Government some advice about the way in which to encourage small businesses to think positively about this matter, and I shall do so in two ways. One way to encourage small businesses is by the use of modern technology—I say this as someone who has some knowledge of the subject.
It is interesting that the training and enterprise council in my area has sent out 10,000 attractively produced glossy leaflets showing its successes and activities. I do not criticise the TEC for many of the activities in which it has engaged, but, I criticise the use of money to produce the glossy literature. That money could have been used to train small employers in how better to utilise modern technology in their industries to ensure that such simple things can be provided as a matter of course.
Any company worth its salt keeps records. It is more efficient to keep records on a computer database than to do so manually. The Secretary of State will know Chester, Ellesmere Port and Warrington TEC—CEWTEC—and will doubtless praise many of its activities, but I am sure that he will agree that it could direct some resources towards helping to train small businesses in how to improve their record-keeping, administration and efficiency. Part of that process could be to encourage small businesses, many of which use computers, to utilise facilities that are available at minimal cost to provide statements to their employees.

Mr. Roy Beggs: From his experience, can the hon. Gentleman say how long it would take to prepare an itemised statement?

Mr. Miller: I shall stick to the point that I was making about computerised information, and will refer to manual records later.
A good employer will collate the relevant computerised data, and it would take seconds to produce an itemised statement. If an employer has a well organised database, the stroke of a handful of keys will be all that is necessary to produce the statement. The process can he as quick as that in a well run business—and we are all in favour of encouraging such businesses.
The same arguments can be applied to the question whether there should be an upper limit of 20. The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) made an important contribution in Committee, and I congratulate her on being positive. I hope that she does not back off one jot from the sentence, which is on record, in which she said:
As the trend is towards part-time work, especially for women, it is important that everyone who has deductions from pay, and who in future may have to prove them either to the Inland Revenue or to the Benefits Agency, has written proof of those deductions."—[Official Report. Standing Committee F, 14 January 1993; c. 434.]
I absolutely agree—"everyone" must mean everyone in a company, irrespective of size. I hope that the hon. Member for Tiverton will support us in the Division Lobby. Why should there be an arbitrary limit on the number of employees in a company?
To return to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), even if a very small company cannot justify the few hundred pounds' investment in a personal computer that could be used for other activities, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has supplied the ideal solution. A proforma duplicate pad could be used to provide the basic information.
An employer—no matter what size his business—must keep books in some form or another, so to produce information on a carbonised pad would not take any effort. It would require the employer to produce information in an honest, open and accountable way to all those involved—not just the employees, but all the public agencies. Even if the technology in a company extended only to a ballpoint pen, the employer would have the facilities at his disposal to provide the information required.
It is against that background that I believe that the Government have slipped up badly. They had an opportunity to make a major advance and have failed to take it. Therefore, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East in opposing the Lords amendment.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: We have had an interesting debate and learnt that the official Opposition policy is to start a paper chase the length and breadth of Britain. Every cleaning lady and part-time handyman will be given a piece of paper by their employers, whether they want it or not.
The Opposition have been thoroughly ungrateful today in the face of the Government's reasonable and responsible response to considered arguments.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Not true.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that that is not true. I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning) —I am delighted that she has agreed to become my Parliamentary Private Secretary today. It was in no small part due to the part that she played in Committee that my right hon. Friend and I felt that she would be a splendid


addition to the Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton took the initiative in Committee. The hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) supported the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) is not distinguishing himself today—he is no gentleman. He quoted my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton selectively. He did not quote column 436, where she said in response to my comments:
I am encouraged by my hon. Friend's comments
My comments in respect of the amendment were:
Once again, we are discussing an additional cost being imposed on employers. I am not certain what the costs or the implications would be. We have had no opportunity to discuss the idea with any of the organisations which represent small businesses, which would be affected by the proposal. If my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment, we can pursue her idea with outside groups which take an interest in these matters, and reach a conclusion."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 14 January 1993; c. 436.]
That is precisely what we did—we consulted.
Earlier, I was criticised for not consulting. On that occasion we consulted and found that the Confederation of British Industry, the Forum of Private Business and other organisations wanted a cut-off for small firms. That was why we introduced the amendment to improve the law by giving new rights to employees who work a small number of hours. We limited the legislation in terms of the impact on business and introduced it in such a way that any change to the limit can be made by secondary legislation should any Government decide to do so in the future.
That policy marks an advance, and to be faced with Opposition criticism that we have not done enough in a sector where we have done a great deal as a result of discussions in Committee—and done so in double quick time—is harsh.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and particularly for reminding us that the Government are a listening Government. We applaud the Minister for talking to the CBI and representatives of small businesses before reaching a decision. However, how many low-paid, part-time workers in his constituency did he speak to before coming up with his formula?

Mr. Forsyth: The conversations that I have had with low-paid workers in my constituency showed that receiving itemised pay statements was not at the top of their agenda, where they listed more basic items such as how to improve their employment prospects, deal with housing problems and other such issues. One of the ways of solving such problems is to increase this country's wealth-creating capacity. We shall not achieve that by tying up businesses in red tape, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Mr. David Hanson: Did the Minister consult his colleagues in the Department of Social Security and in the Benefits Agency? I am worried that many people who will not now have itemised pay slips will not qualify for means-tested benefits and other benefits administered by the Department. What did the DSS have to say about his proposals?

7 pm

Mr. Forsyth: People in the tax system will get their P60s, which provide the information. There is nothing to prevent employers, the vast majority of whom follow best practices in this matter, from providing the information for people whose incomes fall below that. Just for once, the hon. Gentleman should bring himself to welcome a Government proposal and to acknowledge that the position of people employed by firms with more than 20 employees working a small number of hours has been greatly improved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chester (Mr. Brandreth) said, there must be a balance between the benefits and the costs of the bureaucracy imposed on small businesses.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said that not many members of the CBI have fewer than 20 employees. He should remember that these small firms are the future large employer members of the CBI, and if they have to spend every waking hour filling in forms and sending out bits of paper, they will never become the larger firms that will provide the jobs of the future.

Mr. Graham: I am not knocking the Government for talking to the CBI—I thought that the Government were in the closet with the CBI all the time, anyway—but I do take issue with the Government over how many employees they may have consulted. Have they spoken to trade unions or youth organisations about their decision? We seem to hear a lot from the Government about small employers, but not much about employees. How will this measure help them?

Mr. Forsyth: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. He said that computers are all around us and that high technology is a fact of life. I suggest that he go and talk to those who own the newsagents, corner shops and small firms in his constituency and ask them to show him their computers which will produce itemised pay statements. He will find that there, as elsewhere in the country, employers with small numbers of employees are struggling under numerous burdens, and they would not thank this House for adding to those burdens at a time when they are working hard to create wealth and to survive in difficult trading conditions.

Mr. Peter L Pike: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening long to our proceedings.
The hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey), who is not now in her place, asked me to bear in mind the importance of competitiveness. She spoke about the evidence given by the CBI and others to the Trade and Industry Select Committee. She at least listens to the voice of business. She said that competitiveness was important and that we ought to learn from Japan, where there was a fundamentally different attitude to employees. I could not agree with her more. The difference between Japan and Europe is that Japanese non-wage labour costs are exactly half those of Europe. Opposition Members should stop coming up with bright ideas to add to the non-wage costs of our employers—especially small employers.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery wanted me to give an assurance that we would monitor the progress of the legislation. The Government monitor every


piece of legislation. I only regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not give us credit for having made an advance—

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister mean to say that he has evidence that in Japan pay slips are not given to employees who work part time in industry? I suggest that the vast majority of Japanese employers give computerised pay slips to part-time employees who work less than 16 hours.

Mr. Forsyth: I knew that the Liberals made up their policies as they go along; I did not realise that they did the same when it comes to arguments of this kind. I repeat: the non-wage labour costs of Japan are half those of the European Community, thus giving it a competitive advantage. If the hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues had had their way, British non-wage costs would be a good deal higher, as they would have made us sign up to the social chapter and all the other nonsense which will make it much more difficult for Europe to compete with the Japanese and others.
Lords amendments Nos. 29 and 41 represent an advance. I ask the House to support them and to reject the Opposition amendment.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 281.

Division 299]
[7.05 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clelland, David


Allen, Graham
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Alton, David
Coffey, Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Connarty, Michael


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Armstrong, Hilary
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Austin-Walker, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barnes, Harry
Cousins, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Cryer, Bob


Battle, John
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dafis, Cynog


Beggs, Roy
Darling, Alistair


Bell, Stuart
Davidson, Ian


Bennett, Andrew F.
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Benton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bermingham, Gerald
Denham, John


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dewar, Donald


Blair, Tony
Dixon, Don


Blunkett, David
Dobson, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H.


Boyce, Jimmy
Dowd, Jim


Boyes, Roland
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bradley, Keith
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Enright, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Etherington, Bill


Burden, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Byers, Stephen
Fatchett, Derek


Caborn, Richard
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cann, Jamie
Foulkes, George


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Fraser, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fyfe, Maria


Clapham, Michael
Galbraith. Sam





Gapes, Mike
Milburn, Alan


Garrett, John
Miller, Andrew


George, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gerrard, Neil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morgan, Rhodri


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gordon, Mildred
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gould, Bryan
Mowlam, Marjorie


Graham, Thomas
Mudie, George


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mullin, Chris


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Murphy, Paul


Grocott, Bruce
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Gunnell, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hain, Peter
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hall, Mike
O'Hara, Edward


Hanson, David
Olner, William


Henderson, Doug
O'Neill, Martin


Heppell, John
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Parry, Robert


Hoey, Kate
Patchett, Terry


Home Robertson, John
Pike, Peter L.


Hood, Jimmy
Pope, Greg


Hoon, Geoffrey
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)



Hoyle, Doug
Prescott, John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Radice, Giles


Hutton, John
Randall, Stuart


Ingram, Adam
Raynsford, Nick


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rendel, David


Jamieson, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Janner, Greville
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rowlands, Ted


Jowell, Tessa
Ruddock, Joan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Salmond, Alex


Keen, Alan
Sedgemore, Brian


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Sheerman, Barry



Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Khabra, Piara S.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Short, Clare


Kirkwood, Archy
Simpson, Alan


Leighton, Ron
Skinner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Loyden, Eddie
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lynne, Ms Liz
Snape, Peter


McAllion, John
Soley, Clive


McAvoy, Thomas
Spearing, Nigel


McCartney, Ian
Spellar, John


Macdonald, Calum
Steinberg, Gerry


McKelvey, William
Stevenson, George


Mackinlay, Andrew
Stott, Roger


McLeish, Henry
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McNamara, Kevin
Tipping, Paddy


McWilliam, John
Trimble, David


Madden, Max
Turner, Dennis


Mahon, Alice
Tyler, Paul


Mandelson, Peter
Vaz, Keith


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wallace, James


Martlew, Eric
Walley, Joan


Maxton, John
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Meacher, Michael
Wareing, Robert N


Meale, Alan
Welsh, Andrew


Michael, Alun
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)






Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Winnick, David




Wise, Audrey
Tellers for the Ayes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Eric Illsley.


Wright, Dr Tony





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dicks, Terry


Aitken, Jonathan
Dorrell, Stephen


Alexander, Richard
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dover, Den


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Duncan, Alan


Amess, David
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, James
Dunn, Bob


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dykes, Hugh


Ashby, David
Eggar, Tim


Aspinwall. Jack
Elletson, Harold


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bake, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baldry, Tony
Evennett, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Faber, David


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Body, Sir Richard
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Booth, Hartley
French, Douglas


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gallie, Phil


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Gardiner, Sir George


Bowis, John
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Garnier, Edward


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butler, Peter
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butterfill, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Carttiss, Michael
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Cash, William
Hampson, Dr Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Andrew


Churchill, Mr
Harris, David


Clappison, James
Haselhurst, Alan


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hawkins, Nick


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hawksley, Warren


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hayes, Jerry


Coe, Sebastian
Heald, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Congdon, David
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Cran, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (North


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Norfolk)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey





Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shersby, Michael


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sims, Roger


Legg, Barry
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lord, Michael
Spring, Richard


Luff, Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stephen, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stern, Michael


Madel, David
Stewart, Allan


Maitland, Lady Olga
Streeter, Gary


Malone, Gerald
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Sweeney, Walter


Marlow, Tony
Sykes, John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tapsell. Sir Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mates, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Milligan, Stephen
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, Iain
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Moate, Sir Roger
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Needham, Richard
Trend, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Trotter, Neville


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Norris, Steve
Walden, George


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Page, Richard
Watts, John


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Patnick, Irvine
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whittingdale, John


Pawsey, James
Widdecombe, Ann


Pickles, Eric
Willetts, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Wilshire, David


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)




Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson. Mark


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Yeo, Tim


Richards, Rod
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Riddick, Graham



Robathan, Andrew
Tellers for the Noes


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 29 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 30—Dismissal on ground of assertion to statutory right—

(".—(1) After section 60 of the 1978 Act (as substituted by section 23 of this Act), there shall be inserted—

DISMISSAL ON GROUNDS OF ASSERTION OF STATUTORY RIGHT.

60A.—(1) The dismissal of an employee by an employer shall be regarded for the purposes of this Part as having been unfair if the reason for it (or, if more than one, the principal reason) was that the employee—

(a) brought proceedings against the employer to enforce a right of his which is a relevant statutory right; or
(b) alleged that the employer had infringed a right of his which is a relevant statutory right.

(2) It is immaterial for the purposes of subsection (I) whether the employee has the right or not and whether it has been infringed or not, but, for that subsection to apply, the claim to the right and that it has been infringed must be made in good faith.

(3) It shall be sufficient for subsection (I) to apply that the employee, without specifying the right, made it reasonably clear to the employer what the right claimed to have been infringed was.

(4) The following statutory rights are relevant for the purposes of this section, namely—

(a) any right conferred by—

(i) this Act, or
(ii) the Wages Act 1986, for which the remedy for its infringement is by way of a complaint or reference to an industrial tribunal;

(b) the right conferred by section 49 (minimum notice):
(c) the rights conferred by the following provisions of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consoldiation) Act 1992, namely, sections 68, 86, 146, 168, 169 and 170 (deductions from pay, union activities and time off)."

(2) In section 59 of the 1978 Act (dismissal on ground of redundancy), in subsection (2) (inserted by section 23(2) of this Act), after the word "(e)" there shall he inserted the words "or 60A(1) (read with (2) and (3))".

(3) In section 64 of the 1978 Act (qualifying period for right not to be unfairly dismissed), in subsection (4) (inserted by section 23(3) of this Act), after the word "(e)" there shall be inserted the words "or 60A(1) (read with (2) and (3))".")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 42, 59, 60 and 64.

Mr. Forsyth: Government amendment No. 30, with which are grouped the associated minor and technical amendments, is an important addition to the Bill's provisions, making a further significant enhancement to employees' individual rights.
The new clause was first introduced by the Government in Committee in another place to fulfil a commitment that I gave, I think from memory, to the hon. Members for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We had undertaken to introduce a measure giving employees, regardless of their length of service or hours of work, protection against being unfairly dismissed for seeking to

enforce the right to a written statement of main employment particulars. We had also said that we would consider the extent to which similar protection might be extended to employees seeking to enforce other statutory employment rights.
We concluded that the new provision should be comprehensive, applying in respect of all statutory employment protection rights. The rights in question are: all rights conferred by either the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978 or the Wages Act 1986 for which the remedy for infringement is by way of a complaint or a reference to an industrial tribunal; the right to a minimum period of notice; and all the rights which an employee may exercise against his or her employer under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.
The protection will apply where the employee's dismissal was on the ground that he or she had brought proceedings against the employer to enforce one of these rights and also where it was on the ground that he or she had alleged that the employer had infringed such a right. The protection will also apply where the employee was selected for redundancy on the same grounds.
It will be unnecessary for the employee actually to have made detailed reference to the right in question, as long as he or she made it reasonably clear to the employer what that right was. It will also be immaterial whether the employee had actually qualified for the right and whether the right had been infringed, provided that he or she had acted in good faith in seeking to assert it. I am sure that the Opposition will agree that that is watertight.
As I am sure all hon. Members will agree, dismissal of an employee for seeking in good faith to enforce his or her statutory employment protection rights is wholly unjustifiable. I am confident that few employers would ever contemplate acting in such an irresponsible manner. However, the new clause, which will make all such dismissals automatically unfair, will provide comprehensive new protection for individual employees against any misguided employer who might act in this way.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I welcome this generous amendment, which more than fulfils the commitments given by the Minister in Committee. We are pleased that the amendment does not merely place a duty on the employee to show that his rights were impeded. Irrespective of whether it was later shown that he did not have a right to ask for information because of a technical problem, the important issue is that the employee acted in good faith. It is good that, for once, in the Bill the benefit of the doubt is given to the employee.
The measure does not deal with whether an industrial tribunal can order reinstatement or award compensation. However, I should be ruled out of order if I started to discuss that and the Minister would think I was being churlish. In any case we discussed the matter in Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 31—Application of 1978 Act to service in armed forces—

(".—(1) In section 138 of the 1978 Act (application of Act to Crown employment) for subsection (3) (service in the armed forces excepted) there shall be substituted—

"(3) This section applies to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown but only


in accordance with section 138A and it applies also to employment by any association established for the purposes of Part VI of the Reserve Forces Act 1980."

(2) After section 138, there shall be inserted—

"Application of Act to armed forces.

138A.—(1) The provisions of this Act which apply, by virtue of section 138, to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the crown are—

Part I;
in Part II, sections 19 to 22 and 31A;
Part III;
in Part IV, section 53;
Part V, except sections 57A and 80;
Part VIII; and
this Part.

(2) Her Majesty may, by Order in Council,—

(a) amend subsection (1) above by making additions to, or omissions from, the provisions for the time being specified in that subsection by an Order under this subsection; and
(b) make any provision apply to service as a member of the naval, military or air forces of the Crown subject to such exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the Order.

(3) Subject to subsection (5) below, modifications made under subsection (2) above may include provision precluding the making of a complaint or reference to any industrial tribunal unless the person aggrieved has availed himself of the service procedures for the redress of complaints applicable to him.

(4) Where modifications include the provision authorised by subsection (3) above the Order in Council shall also include provision designed to secure that the service procedures for the redress of complaints result in a determination, or what is to be treated under the Order as a determination, in sufficient time to enable a complaint or reference to be made to an industrial tribunal.

(5) No provision shall be made by virtue of subsection (3) above which has the effect of substituting, for any period specified as the normal period for a complaint or reference on any matter to an industrial tribunal, a period longer than six months.

(6) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty to make an Order in Council under subsection (2) above unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(7) In this section—

"the normal period for a complaint or reference", in relation to any matter within the jurisdiction of an industrial tribunal, means the period specified in the relevant enactment as the period within which the complaint or reference must be made, disregarding any provision permitting an extension of that period at the discretion of the tribunal; and

"the service procedures for the redress of complaints" means the procedures, excluding those which relate to the making of a report on a complaint to Her Majesty, referred to in sections 180 and 181 of the Army Act 1955, sections 180 and 181 of the Air Force Act 1955 and section 130 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957."")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) for his comments on the previous amendment. I am sure that he and his colleagues will also welcome this new clause, which will considerably improve the rights of members of the armed forces to enjoy employment protection measures equivalent to those that are enjoyed by civilian employees.
It has always been recognised that members of the armed forces are in a special employment position, and that measures applying to civilian employees may well be inappropriate. This is why service in the armed forces has up to now been excluded from coverage by the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978, by

virtue of section 138(3). This subsection provides that subsection (1), which applies many of the Act's provisions to Crown employees, does not apply to those in the armed forces. However, in this day and age, such a blanket exclusion is unnecessary and unjustified. The new clause brings the provisions up to date. It applies to the armed forces almost the same list of provisions as apply to Crown servants.
Nevertheless, it is clear that modifications will need to be made to the provisions to make them compatible with the special considerations that necessarily apply to the services. Therefore, the clause contains powers to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence to make an order providing that internal procedures will need to be exhausted before service men and service women can take a complaint to an industrial tribunal and make any other necessary adaptations.

Mr. Eric Martlew: I have a special responsibility for defence for the Opposition and I welcome this new clause. It has been tabled because of cases of discrimination, especially against pregnant women. I hope that there will be no repeat of the recent case of an RAF sergeant, a skilled technician, who, although she was not dismissed when she had twins, was told that she would not be given housing accommodation and that if she was posted abroad and her children went with her they would not be given education or medical facilities. She was also told that if her children stayed in this country boarding school allowances would not be payable. That was discrimination of the worst kind.
I understand that pressure was one of the reasons for the Government altering the Bill. Another reason is the EC directive, which would probably force the Government to accept contracts of employment. The debate in the other place was short. Will people in the armed forces be allowed a written statement of employment, an itemised pay statement and maternity leave? Will they be given a written statement of reasons for dismissal and will they be allowed the right to claim unfair dismissal and the right to go to an industrial tribunal?
I understand that the clause precludes members of the armed forces from becoming members of a trade union. For that reason, it is important to place on record the rights that the new clause will extend to members of the armed forces. Those rights need to be spelt out in black and white and I hope that the Minister can state the exact meaning of the new clause.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of detailed questions. I am grateful to him; I share his concern about, for instance, the rights of women in the armed services who become pregnant.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about certain specific rights. The amendment replaces section 138(3) with a new subsection which will apply to members of the armed forces, relating to the rights specified in new subsection (1) —that is, rights to written statements of the main terms and conditions of employment, as amended to reflect, among other things, the requirement of the EC proof of employment directive. Those terms and conditions are itemised pay statements, the right to be paid when under medical supervision, time off for ante-natal care, maternity rights as amended by the Bill to implement the pregnant


workers directive, a written statement of the reason for dismissal, a right not to be unfairly dismissed and resolution of disputes by an industrial tribunal.
7.30 pm
I have said that access to an industrial tribunal will be limited until the internal procedures have been followed —although there is a further safeguard in the form of a six-month time limit. Subsections (2)(a) and (b) of new section 138A provide that the provisions specified in subsection (1) may be added to, removed or modified by Order in Council.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who probably knows more than I do about the details of arrangements for the armed services, will be aware that their members already receive itemised pay statements.

("( ) in Regulation 5 (effect of transfer on contracts of employment, etc)—

(a) in paragraph (1), at the beginning, there shall be inserted the words "Except where objection is made under paragraph (4A) below,";
(b) in paragraph (2) after the words "paragraph (I) above there shall be inserted the words "but subject to paragraph (4A) below,";
(c) after paragraph (4), there shall be inserted—

"(4A) Paragraphs (1) and (2) above shall not operate to transfer his contract of employment and the rights, powers, duties and liabilities under or in connection with it if the employee informs the transferor or the transferee that he objects to becoming employed by the transferee.
(4B) where an employee so objects the transfer of the undertaking or part in which he is employed shall operate so as to terminate his contract of employment with the transferor but he shall not be treated, for any purpose, as having been dismissed by the transferor."; and

(d) in paragraph (5), for the words "Paragraph (1) above is" there shall be substituted the words "Paragraphs (1) and (4A) above are".")

Mr. Galbraith: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, amendment (a), in line 19, leave out
'not be treated, for any purpose'
and insert
'be treated, for all purposes'.
I fear that peace broke out for only a short time and that we are about to engage in battle again. The Minister and his hon. Friend do not like that idea at all; it frightens them. We are about to discuss the aspect of the Bill that the Minister and the Government probably hate most—the question of the European acquired rights directive on the transfer of engagement. It is more commonly known as TUPE, or the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1991.
The Government have always opposed the directive. They have always tried to cover up its significance and have attempted to fiddle the law in order to do so. When they were caught, instead of saying, "It's a fair cop, guy," their line was, "We never did anything. We did not steal the car; we were just borrowing it. If they wanted it back, they could have had it back at any time—honest, m'lud. We were not trying to mislead the public in any way." According to the Government, their proposals were always intended to apply to competitive tendering. We are now dealing with an amendment to the regulation involved.
The amendment was prompted by a case in the European Court of Justice. It is known as the Kastikas

The Ministry of Defence is reviewing the policy that denies married quarters and boarding-school allowances to unmarried parents; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is pleased about that, as I am.
Peace has broken out in our consideration of these Lords amendments. I commend Lords amendment No. 31 to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 29

AMENDMENTS OF TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS REGULATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 47, line 10, at end insert—

case. I hope that I have pronounced that correctly; I understood the Minister when he said that many a mickle makes a muckle, but my Greek is not quite up to his lowland Scots. [Interruption.] The Minister has just corrected my pronunciation, demonstrating that he has a grasp of Greek as well as lowland Scots. That is splendid. He had a proper Scottish education: if hon. Members are in any doubt about that, let me tell them that he attended Arbroath high school. That good start was followed by a retrograde step, in that the Minister then went to St. Andrews university; but those of us who went to superior Scottish universities appreciate that some folk who cannot get into them will end up at St. Andrews.

The Kastikas case demonstrated that, when an undertaking is transferred from one employer to another, no one employed by the transferor is obliged to have the contract transferred to the employee. That surprised me, and I gather that it surprised many other people. We had always assumed that, in the event of a transfer of engagement, all contracts of employment were transferred. Not so, said the European Court:

"If the Directive … allows an employee to remain in employment with a new employer on the same conditions as those agreed with the transferor"

this is important—

"it cannot be interpreted as obliging the employee to continue his employment relationship with the transferee.

Such an obligation would undermine the fundamental rights of the employee who must be free to choose his employer and cannot be obliged to work for an employer." That important first part of the Court's judgment established that the individual had a fundamental right not to be compelled to work for an employer and that the contract could therefore not be considered transferable under the directive.

The judgment stated that the provisions

"do not prevent an employee from objecting to the transfer of his contract of employment or of his employment relationship."

The court then dealt with what is effectively the crux of the dispute that we are having today:

"In such cases, it is for the Member States to determine the fate of the contract of employment or of the employment relationship."

The judgment has two essential parts. First, it states that the employee can object: he is under no obligation to transfer. However, what happens to the contract of employment is then a matter for the member state alone. No decision has been made about that, so it is up to the Government to table the necessary amendment. They were given the opportunity to clarify the law, but once again they have chosen not to side with the employee. Most people would have expected them to do so; after all, the employee is at a disadvantage. It is the employer who triggers the change in employment. The amendment, however, gives the advantage to the employer yet again. Whenever they are given the choice, the Government side with the employer.

The Government have said that the employee has the right to object, but if that happens, what was described in the other place as a depth charge or nuclear explosion will be brought into play: the employee will instantly be considered to have been dismissed.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: What is at issue is this: if an employee decides not to transfer to the new employer, he is held to have resigned. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that he should be paid redundancy money. Is he really suggesting that, in the event of a transfer from the public to the private sector, the employee should be able to claim redundancy payment and then reapply for the job the following day? What protection would there be? Is that the evenhanded approach that the hon. Gentleman is advocating?

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister should have thought about that before tabling the amendment. That is the problem of tabling new amendments at short notice.
The amendment raises various issues. What rights should be available to employees? What redundancy rights should there be and what rights should employees have to go to an industrial tribunal? What rights should they have to payment in lieu of notice and should they have the right to be given due notice? We may wish to discuss those issues, but it is clear that none of those rights prevails under the Government's amendment.
Before a transfer is made, an employee has the right to notice of dismissal, payment in lieu of dismissal and all the other associated rights, but if he objects to the transfer all his rights are lost because, under the amendment,

he shall not be treated, for any purpose, as having been dismissed".

Our amendment seeks to retain the rights that the employee had before the transfer. It would not give the employee the right to be employed for ever by the employer. We are not suggesting that, but simply that the employee should retain the rights that he had before the transfer. The employer can still dismiss the employee, but the employee will have the right to notice, to payment in lieu of notice, to redundancy, and the right to go to an industrial tribunal. The Minister may say that it would not be suitable to retain some of those rights, and we can discuss that, but it is clear that under the Government's amendment employees who do not transfer will have no rights whatsoever.

Mr. Forsyth: I do not want to disturb the hon. Gentleman's train of thought, but the employee does have rights. He has the right to retain his employment and move into employment with the new employer. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that, if the employee decides not to transfer to the new employer and retain the rights that he has accrued, he should not be treated as if he had resigned and that he should be given redundancy payment. Given that the employee is not being required to lose his job, it is difficult to understand the hon. Gentleman's argument that that would be a legitimate position.

Mr. Galbraith: The Minister has failed to understand that the employee is no longer under any obligation. He should remember that it is the employer who triggers the necessity for the employee to choose whether or not to transfer. If the employer makes that decision—and the European Court recognised that the employee is under no obligation to transfer—what rights should be retained by an employee who chooses not to transfer? Under the Government's proposed amendment, the employee loses all rights; he retains the right not to transfer, but he then has no rights whatsoever. Our amendment seeks to retain some rights for that employee.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is time to clear up this whole TUPE business, as the truth has not been told. Labour's proposal is ridiculous. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that someone who is not redundant should be regarded as redundant, that someone who, through the generosity and good will of the European Community is guaranteed the same job with the same pay and the same working arrangements, working in the same place, should be treated as redundant. Surely the Labour party, which has a splendid record of fighting for working people, cannot regard as redundant someone who is not redundant at all.

Mr. Galbraith: I do not agree, although we may wish to discuss that issue. However, other rights apart from the right to redundancy payment are also involved. The right to notice of termination of employment and the right to payment in lieu of notice would also be lost. In other words, an employee would go from having certain rights to having absolutely none at all. We may wish to discuss what rights are available to that individual. Some rights may be inappropriate, but it is clear that, as a result of a change in the working relationship triggered by the employer, absolutely no rights are available to the employee and that cannot be acceptable. That is what we seek to amend.

Mr. Graham: Last night we discussed the fact that some employers were bribing workers not to be members of trade unions. If I were an employer and another company


was buying out my company, I would not expect my staff to want to transfer because they would have to accept a reduction in pay. Many people would end up working for employers who were hostile to their fully held union beliefs and would not wish to work for such companies.

Mr. Galbraith: I thank my hon. Friend, who made his point in his usual inimitable style.

Mr. Clapham: is my hon. Friend aware that the situation that he describes appertains to the coal industry? If a colliery surface is privatised and sold to a new company, employees previously employed by the British Coal Corporation receive the opportunity of accepting redundancy. They are paid money in lieu of notice and then, it' they wish, they are taken on by the new employer.

Mr. Galbraith: These issues certainly merit further discussion. I understand that the Government introduced the measure to deal with the Kastikis case and therefore they probably had less time than usual. However, it raises a number of issues.
Our interpretation is that the amendment removes from the employee every right that he or she has. Perhaps the Minister, who shakes his head, can say whether or not an employee who refuses to transfer still has the right to notice of dismissal and payment in lieu of notice. Finally, when is it considered to he dismissal? Is it when the employee signs an undertaking saying that he does not wish to transfer, or is it when the engagements have been transferred?
Given the opportunity to confer rights on individuals, once again the Government have failed. I understand their hostility to TUPE. I well remember that, in Committee, the Minister used to speak through clenched teeth and explain to his Back Benchers who were up in arms that. no matter what his personal feelings were, he could not alter European law.
It was probably one of the saddest moments in the Minister's political career. It was the bottom, and he has had some pretty low points. For example, he accused the National Federation of Women's Institutes of being a Marxist organisation. These poor women in Stirling, Callender and Doune making jam and buttering scones on behalf of charities were all labelled Marxist subversives. They were shaking in their hoots in Callander.
Under the amendment, do employees lose all rights when they refuse to transfer and when are they considered to have made that refusal?

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Opposition's amendment is one of the most ridiculous that I have ever seen. The clear implication of the hard-fought-for right to compensation for redundancy was that someone made redundant was entitled to compensation. We are talking here about a situation in which a new employer takes over a service. If the new employer, through the generosity of the EC, is obliged to offer the same job, without any change in working conditions, even in the room in which he works, without any change in wages, without change in anything, there is no way in which that employee can be declared redundant. The Opposition's amendment is ridiculous because in it they are asking for a special category of redundancy to be given to people who are not redundant at all.
But it is not that which worries me so much as the Government's proposal and the Lords amendment, not because I object to it—it seems quite sensible, particularly the new paragraph (4B)—but because I am concerned about whether the Government are right.
The only point that I want to make, which I hope the Minister will think about, is that when we look back we see that two things have happened. First, the Government have been consistently wrong in their judgments or assessments of the law. Secondly, the most shameful cloak of secrecy has been thrown over the TUPE business. The Government have consistently sought to try to hide the iniquitous policies of the EC, the way in which our freedom is being taken away and the way in which industry, commerce and jobs are being undermined.
That is clear, as we see time and again. Perhaps most obvious is the fact that we are not allowed to table questions on the size of the piles of food in the EC. All kinds of things are being covered up, but on this issue I make two points. First, because of the Government's cloak of secrecy, there has been a deliberate attempt not to tell employers what is happening. Privatised employers feel most upset about the fact that the long infraction proceedings initiated by the European Commission were not made public by the Government. and employers and local authorities went ahead with arrangements, making contracts and offering out services, without being aware that all the time Jacques Delors and his friends were nibbling away at the matter, with serious results.
The second point on which I hope that the Minister will give me some guidance concerns what will happen to the local councils that privatised their services many years ago. Southend is an obvious example. We privatised services, we believe to the benefit of the ratepayers, although that is a question of judgment, and saved money. But whether we were clever or stupid, the Minister will he well aware of the judgment on the Eastbourne case, as a result of which it seems that backdated responsibility will be put on the councils or the employers to pay massive sums of money to the employees concerned. Not only will they have to make redundancy payments to workers who were made redundant at the time of privatisation, but they will have to compensate them for loss of earnings as well.
East bourne and Southend sacked all the workers, brought in a new employer who appointed new people, no doubt with better working conditions—in Southend the wages rose over a period—but there were far fewer people doing more work. Now, having done what the Government told them to do, they find that they are faced with horrendous liabilities. What we in Southend would like to know, what Eastbourne would like to know, is who will pay. We are not clear whether the employer or the council will have to pay. We understand that it will be the employer who has to pay, which will put many good employers out of business through no fault of their own. If that happens, it will be serious.
I should like the Minister to give advice, particularly to friends of mine who pop into the House of Commons from Scotland from time to time, on who will be responsible for that and what will happen. The Minister will be well aware from the activities of the clause 26 group—a group of private employers—that they feel let down. They did what was legal and what the Government told them to do. They did a good job and now they find that they are being clobbered retrospectively through no fault of their own.
It would be okay if the Government said, "Look, we are terribly sorry, but Jacques Delors has mucked all this up. We don't control the EC. They did it." But the fact is that for two years the Government were being pursued by the EC Commission. They knew it would probably go funny, they did not tell the employers, new contracts were made and a great loss was involved.
Secondly, what the blazes is the Government's advice now? I have seen the advice given by the Secretary of State for the Environment to local authorities. Let me read one sentence of the advice given to that splendid council in a place called Liverpool which sought the advice of the Conservative Government. It was told:
Mr. Farrell of the TGWU is not incorrect in suggesting that the TUPE will require any future contractor to guarantee the existing wages and conditions of cleaners based at your school. It should not be assumed, however, that the Regulations will apply in this particular case.
What is the Liverpool council meant to do? What are councils throughout the land meant to do when not only arc they told that it may be correct but it may be wrong, but they also receive circular letters from the Secretary of State for the Environment with huge newsletters saying that, if they try to shove in TUPE, they could be taken to court under some strange regulation of local government legislation, and the council could be held personally responsible?
We have the crazy situation in which councils are looking for advice, they are given ambiguous replies and then they receive circulars from the Department of the Environment saying that, if they do not get it right, if they do not follow it through, the councillors could be taken to court for letting down the ratepayers.
Thirdly, and terribly importantly, will the Minister give some guidance on what will be the difference on 1 July 1993? On 1 July, which is not far away, something called the EC services directive will apply. The expert officials who follow such things with great delight will be well aware that that says that any contract over £142,000 will have substantial consequences for TUPE and the responsibilities of local authorities. My understanding is that the ambiguous advice given by the Department of the Environment will be overtaken on 1 July 1993 when the EC services directive comes into force. There is not much point sending out circulars when we arc getting it all wrong.
I simply make the point that the Government are saying, "Don't worry about this one. We have put it right and we will say that people who are not redundant should not be redundant because that is the way we have interpreted the European directive. We appreciate that the acquired rights directive was passed under a Labour Government, but it was a long time ago and the directive that was passed at that time is wildly different from the present law."
My final point—I hope that the Government will think about this—is that many private firms in Britain face disaster if they are to be sued retrospectively for doing what was legal at the time according to the British courts and the British Government, according to the advice that they had which was legal. They will face bankruptcy and ruin and many workers will be sacked. There is something very wrong in such a situation and something must be

done. At the very least, our delightful new Secretary of State for Employment should say that he will meet those people and talk to them.
The whole problem has arisen because of the EC's obsessive desire to be involved in every aspect of law. I accept that the Labour party is delighted that some of the things that it wants—

Mr. Graham: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that people whose jobs were taken over have the right to have their existing wages and conditions transferred with them?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Previously they had no such right. If the service was transferred, there was no guarantee for anyone. The new employer could employ two people to do the jobs of 10. He could pay them half the wages. But, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, that has all changed because of the delightful EC and the nice Mr. Delors. He said that everyone's job was okay, no one's conditions could be touched, and there must be meaningful consultation with the workers' representatives.
As hon. Members probably know, the EC made four demands of the Government, three of which they accepted without a fight; they simply caved in, which I find astonishing given that the Department of Employment was meant to be tough on the matter. The only issue on which they are having a battle with the EC is that the EC wants workers' representatives to be defined as workers' representatives. The Government say that the only workers' representatives that a Tory Government are willing to accept are registered trade unionists. That will probably lead to a great battle in the European Court.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will tell me why, when the EC makes four ridiculous demands, the Government accept three of them without a fight and include them in the Bill. The only one that they want to battle against is that which ensures that only registered trade unions will he entitled to discuss the issue on behalf of workers. That is terribly unfair. Will I have to rush up and down the Fenchurch Street line, which is to be privatised, and say to every rail worker. "For goodness sake, rejoin a trade union"?
8 pm
My hon. Friend the Minister may say that that is silly, because everyone will benefit from the discussions, but the fact remains that the people discussing it will he the registered trade unions. If I were an employee on the Fenchurch Street line, I would want to make sure that the organisation discussing it was one of which I am a member. We have ended up with an appalling situation.
I accept that the main responsibility lies with the EC, which has stretched the acquired rights directive well beyond the bounds intended. I acknowledge that private firms are suffering hugely because of the retrospective element that will arise from the Eastbourne case, and that many face ruin. I accept also that the Government, sadly, have tried to pull a cloak of secrecy over the whole business. Being pro-European, they are trying to push through, with the help of my delightful and hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Lull), a Bill that will give even more power and responsibility to the EC, and want to hide the fact that businesses are being ruined and people are losing their jobs because of the acquired rights directive.
No Government like to say, "Give more power to this crowd," when jobs are being lost. [Laughter.] My hon.
Friend the Member for Worcester should not laugh at this. These are real problems. If his local authority has passed any contracts over to private firms, it will now face being chased retrospectively for lots of compensation for all those involved. It is not a laughing matter at all; it is a matter of jobs, cash and private industry.
Hardly anyone knows what is going on. Only the firms which will lose jobs and cash, and which will probably go out of business, know. I ask the Government to tell people what is happening. If the public do not know, how can they possibly prepare for the problems ahead? We appreciate that the Government can do nothing about EC measures other than fight them—and the Government do not want to do that.

Mr. Clapham: The hon. Gentleman used the word "freedom". Does he agree that Labour's amendment would give the individual freedom to decide whether to transfer to his new employer or to accept redundancy and look elsewhere for work?

Sir Teddy Taylor: That freedom has never been challenged by anyone. It is surprising that the hon. Gentleman, as a Labour party member, should say, "Please treat as redundant someone who is not redundant."
Where is the money for redundancy payments to come from but from public and private funds? If someone is offered the same job, working conditions, and everything else, it is difficult to understand why a Labour party member should say, "We will regard that chap as redundant." If I do not like the new foreman of my shipyard, why should I not be allowed to do the same and to change him? Why should I not be able to do the same if the shareholding of my company changes? It is terribly wrong to introduce a new law that says that someone should be treated as redundant when he is not.
Will the Government please hold discussions with the private employers, who are concerned, worried and perplexed? Will they tell people what is happening, because they did not tell them in the past? If they do that, we may enjoy a bonus in a dreadful situation, which will inevitably grow worse with the determinations of the European Court.

Mr. John Hutton: Once again, the House finds itself discussing the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which have a convoluted history. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) is correct when he says that there is considerable concern among private employers as to the implications for them of recent decisions of the European Court. That is common ground between right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I differ from the hon. Gentleman in that I believe that those difficulties have more to do with the drafting of the regulations than with the interpretation that should be placed on the acquired rights directive. The history of the directive's jurisprudence makes it clear to me—and, I am sure, to other lawyers—that, although the directive itself is simple and transparent, the 1981 Conservative Government introduced the regulations from a position directly contrary to the directive's purpose and intent.
When a series of domestic regulations such as TUPE that supposedly implement the terms of a European directive are portrayed and presented from a different

standpoint, sooner or later there will inevitably be conflict. The legal position is clear. In any case of conflict between a Community member state's domestic regulations and the terms of a directive, then—whether the hon. Member for Southend, East likes it or not; clearly he does not, and I respect his views—the directive must take precedence.
That confusion between the implications of the 1981 regulations and the clear intent and purpose of the acquired rights directive is a cause of genuine concern, but many of the difficulties to which the hon. Member for Southend, East referred are the fault and responsibility of the Government, in trying to implement the directive.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned a matter of particular concern in Southend, arising from the implications of privatising its public cleaning department, and the question whether the private contractor who took over that work will now face a serious legal liability. I understand that that might well be the case, but it is equally clear that the Government may have liability for the predicament in which many small employers now find themselves.
In the Frankovitch case at the beginning of the 1990s, it was established in the European Court that a legal liability can be enforced in member states' domestic tribunals, where a member state fails properly to implement the terms of a European directive. In Committee, I put that point to the Attorney-General. He made no attempt to respond, but there is a distinct possibility that the British Government may face substantial legal liability because of their botched attempts to implement the acquired rights directive.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman describes the British Government's attempts to implement the acquired rights directive as botched, but those attempts were made by the last Labour Government.

Mr. Hutton: The Minister is being uncharacteristically disingenuous. Although the last Labour Government attempted to introduce the regulations in the House, they made no reference to the notion of a non-commercial venture, which is the source of the difficulties in which the Government now find themselves. That notion was a transparent design to exempt from the acquired rights directive the privatisation programme that was then beginning and the eventual competitive tendering process which left many casualties in its wake. The Minister is wrong to suggest that the difficulties surrounding TUPE 81 are the responsibility or fault of the last Labour Government. He must remember that they did not succeed in bringing any enforceable regulations into effect.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman is right, but the last Labour Government signed up to the acquired rights directive and, in the other place, gave an assurance to the House that the directive's provisions would not have the effect of including private contracting of the kind that concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in respect of public sector services. That is firmly on record, as the hon. Gentleman knows from our previous, rather lengthy debates on the subject.

Mr. Hutton: We certainly had lengthy debates about the issue, but it is clear from our exchanges tonight that we shall not be able to agree about the import or intent of the


acquired rights directive, or about the efforts of the previous Labour Government to introduce them into British domestic law.
I repeat my central allegation against the Government: our predicament, to which the hon. Member for Southend, East drew our attention yet again—I think I am right in saying that he spoke to the regulations when they were introduced in 1981 and made similar points to those which he has made tonight about the implications for private sector contracting—lies exclusively at the door of the Government. They misled many private companies that were interested in tendering for public sector work by telling them they did not have to worry about the implications of the TUPE regulations on the tendering process. It is astonishing, and therefore, I suppose, wholly in character, for the Minister of State to repeat his bogus contention tonight.
We have probably spent enough time dealing with historical issues. I know that they are of concern to the House, but I now direct my attention specifically to Labour's amendment and to the Government amendment tabled in another place by Lord Ullswater only a few weeks ago.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) said, the amendments are connected to the recent decision of the European Court of Justice in the Katsikas case. The Government's attempt to respond to that decision is typically extreme: employees will have no rights whatsoever if they choose not to permit their contract of employment to be transferred to the transferee, or the new employer.
The Minister of State and the hon. Member for Southend, East have made some play of the question, why should it be possible for an employee to have any statutory employment rights in those circumstances? The hon. Member for Southend, East described the situation as perverse. He said that it would not he a genuine redundancy so it would be unacceptable and inappropriate for workers in that position to have any employment protection.
However, I point out to both hon. Members that if one casts even a cursory glance at British redundancy law—for example, at section 84 of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978—one finds that plenty of examples of what one can best describe as specific redundancy cases are already written into English law. They perhaps do not come within the commonsense definition of the term, but we are dealing with the law and, as any lawyer will tell you, Madam Deputy Speaker, law and common sense do not usually have much connection with each other.
Section 84 gives employees the right to claim a redundancy payment even though they have been offered suitable alternative employment by another employer. As long as an employee reasonably refuses that offer, he or she is entitled to a redundancy payment. There are other examples in British employment law of workers being given a right to claim a redundancy payment. I am thinking in particular of the provisions relating to time off during short-time working. If a worker is laid off or put on short-time working, even if his job still exists he is entitled

to claim a redundancy payment from his employer. The precedents are not in favour of the argument made by the hon. Member for Southend, East.
Other discrepancies may be found in the law applying to redundancy, but we could find plenty of examples under British employment law where workers are entitled to claim a redundancy payment even though it appears that, at first glance, a job still exists. I do not think that there is anything illogical or improper in that. If we want confirmation of that, we must consider the purpose of the Katsikas judgment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden was correct to say that the Katsikas judgment came as something of a surprise. Most people assumed that employees had no option but to accept the transfer of their contract. With hindsight, and after looking after the terms of the judgment, I am glad that the European Court of Justice decided that that was not so.
The Katsikas judgment was designed specifically to protect employees. It was an attempt not to subvert the import of the acquired rights directive but to enhance it by making it clear that a worker was and should be entitled to decide whether he wants his contract to be transferred to the new employer. I hope that there will be no disagreement between us about that. What is objectionable about an employee having the option of saying that he does not want to work for the new employer? The issue is the right to choose for whom one works.
8.15 pm
In the past, the House abolished slavery and ended enforced, conscripted labour. I am sure that Conservative libertarians will accept that individual employees should have the option to decide whether to work for a particular employer. If they exercise that option for genuine reasons —they may, for example, have an aversion to the management style of an employer—and state that they do not wish their contract to be transferred, there is no reason why they should not also claim a number of the statutory employment rights. There is nothing illogical in that.
We could perhaps have a more structured argument about exactly what rights an employee should have in such a case, but our objection to the Government amendment is that the Government are yet again adopting a blunderbuss approach. In an attempt to resolve the so-called dilemma of the Katsikas case, the Government are trying to take away all employment rights from the employee who decides that he will not have his contract transferred to a new employer. Clearly, other options are open to the Government.
Before the Government tabled the amendment, they should, as Lord Wedderburn suggested, at least have considered giving employees the right to claim notice or money in lieu of notice from their old employer. After all, in a transfer the old employer, or the transferor, brings the contract of employment to an end. That must be so, because he is ceasing to trade in a particular business. There is an end to or rupture in the employment relationship. In any other context, the employee would have the right to claim unfair dismissal, redundancy or at least the bare minimum contractual notice. Why do such rights not pertain in a transfer?
I am perfectly prepared to accept that we are dealing with a marginal case which will not involve many employees. If there was an endemic weakness in the regulations or the acquired rights directive, we would have


found more examples of British workers saying that they did not want their contract to he transferred, but it has not happened. I may be wrong, but I cannot recall one case of a British worker arguing that before an industrial tribunal. Although the case may be marginal, it has a potential impact on the working prospects of many people. It is unnecessary and severe of the Government to say that employees in this position should have no rights.
There is a case in law for allowing workers to be able to claim at least some of the employment rights to which they would otherwise be entitled. It is regrettable that the Government have taken the opportunity once again to parade their rather dubious European credentials. I am a strong supporter of Britain's membership of the European Community. We should recognise the fact that our only progressive and socially liberal employment measures in the past 14 years have been due to that membership.
I oppose the Government amendments. It is regrettable that the Government have taken the blunderbuss approach to solving a small problem, but it typifies their objectionable attitude to employment protection.

Mr. Graham: I intend to speak for only a few minutes. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) mentioned a letter. When compulsory competitive tendering was introduced in my area, porters, drivers and others lost £50 a week. We must remember that, although competitive tendering may suit the Government, it does not suit employees. Employees should have the right to decide who their employer should be.
I have worked for various companies. I sold my labour to them and when the employer changed, I had the right to move on. If I worked for a good employer, which I did, who decided to sell his company, he did not sell me along with it. He may have sold his business, but he did not sell Tommy Graham the engineer. Tommy Graham had the right to say that he had helped to make the business go well but he did not want to work for the new employer because he had a terrible record in engineering. I am saying that folk are not slaves that one can wheel and deal with.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: indicated assent.

Mr. Graham: I am obliged to see that the Minister is nodding his head in agreement, but some of our trade union legislation is the worst in Europe. It is beginning to look as if the Government wish to treat trade union members as slaves, and second-class people in Europe.
Surely a man or woman who has worked for a local authority or a similar organisation for 20 years has the right to say, "I do not want to go to that employer." That person may have good reasons, such as those that I have already mentioned. The new employer may have a bad industrial record with trade unions and a record of firing people that is second to none. The worker may say, "I would rather take the money and cut, and see if I can get a better job." Surely that is the right of all workers in this country.

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with the observations of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) on slavery. He is right to say that, if he were employed by someone and the company were sold, the employer had not sold him along with the company. Indeed, that seems to be the principal objection of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) to the acquired rights directive, because where a business is transferred or

sold, the employees are transferred, if they wish, and retain all the employment rights, including pay and conditions, whether or not the employer purchasing the company or the employer selling the company wishes that to be so. That is what the acquired rights directive has brought about, by means of the TUPE regulations.

Mr. Graham: The Minister must realise that if someone works for 20 years in a company as an ordinary engineer, plumber, baker, butcher or whatever, he accrues 20 years of redundancy money, and if he is older than 50 he get more. Someone in the situation described by the Minister would be throwing up 20 years' work, and 20 years' accrued redundancy money. Come on, Minister, it is not fair.

Mr. Forsyth: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has completely grasped the idea. If there is a transfer to a new employer, the employee's rights transfer to the new employer. If he chooses not to transfer to the new employer, clearly he has no continuing rights with the old employer. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, and I am surprised at the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, who is usually fairly concerned about value for money. For the Labour party to argue that people should be paid redundancy money because they are not prepared to continue to do the same job on the same terms and conditions is absurd. I do not belief that the amendment can have been tabled with any serious belief that it would be accepted. Indeed, the Labour party put forward no such proposal, but made a rather more moderate proposal, in the other place.
The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and I had an exchange in Committee when we were discussing the matter, but clearly I did not get my point across to him. He sought to blame the Government for some of the difficulties that have arisen on the transfer of undertakings regulations and said that we had not handled the implementation of the directive properly. He said that the complaints coming from contractors and others involved in local authority work—I understand the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East about that matter—were entirely due to the Government's implementation of the directive.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the debates in the other place on 10 December 1981. It is recorded in columns 1485–86 that the Labour spokesman, Lord McCarthy, said:
The last Labour Government presented"—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not recollected that it is not in order to quote from the other place unless it be from a Minister's statement. I rather think that he was not quoting a Minister.

Mr. Forsyth: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You are right that I should not quote, so if I may I will tell the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness broadly what Lord McCarthy said. He said, as I recall, that the Labour Government had presented the new Government with a draft regulation and that the approach in the 1978 draft by the Labour Government was different from that of the Conservative Government. The noble Lord said that one of the differences was that the Labour version spelled out clearly that charitable bodies,


Government Departments and local authorities would be excluded from the scope of the regulations. My hon. Friend for Southend, East is concerned—

Mr. Galbraith: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: In a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East is concerned about the interpretation of the European Court, which has been taken up by the Commission, of the phrase:
not in the nature of a commercial venture".
That was the phrase that the noble Lord criticised as not having explicitly excluded local authorities from the scope of the regulations.

Mr. Galbraith: I well remember the Minister giving us that explanation in Committee. He will also remember that I said that the Labour spokesman whom he has quoted from memory said those words because no Labour Government, and no Labour Member, could conceive of a situation in which a local authority would wish to contract out its services. That is why it was not necessary to apply the regulations to such a situation. On the same basis, the Shops Act 1950 did not apply to Scotland. It was considered that we were such a religious nation that we would never open our shops on Sundays. We were wrong on that, and the premise behind the Labour Government's belief that it was unnecessary for the regulations to apply to local authorities was wrong, too. We did not support the principle then, and we do not support it now.

Mr. Forsyth: That is a nice theory, but unfortunately it does not stand up. I also seem to recall—of course, I cannot quote exactly the words that the noble Lord used, but no doubt the hon. Gentleman will look up the reference—that Lord McCarthy went on to say that the original draft by the Labour Government would avoid endless arguments about what constituted a commercial venture. In that sense he was right, and prescient about things to come.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It does not matter what the Labour party said or thought in 1981, or what the Minister thought in 1981. Surely we accept that all that is irrelevant. The Europeans have told us what the facts are; what people think does not matter. The Europeans tell us and we have to accept it, right or wrong, whatever was said in 1981. Does the Minister not accept that it is rather silly to be concerned about what Labour said in 1981? That does not matter. Democracy is effectively dead, and Europe will tell us what the facts are.

Mr. Forsyth: On that basis, presumably we are all wasting our time. It matters what the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness said, because I have to reply to him. He was blaming a Conservative Government for having made a mess of the implementation, so it is entirely appropriate for me to explain what view the Labour Government took.

Mr. Hutton: rose—

Mr. Forsyth: I was just about to deal with what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said, because I thought that it mattered and that I ought to respond to it. Nevertheless, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the Minister for showing his usual courtesy in giving way. Does he not admit that, throughout the 1980s, Conservative Ministers in various Departments, especially the Department of the Environment and the Department of Employment, made a great fuss about the fact that the regulations would not apply to privatisations and competitive tendering, only to be told in the 1990s by the European Court of Justice that they had applied all along?

Mr. Forsyth: No, I do not agree at all. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should say that, because he said that he had read the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East made in 1981. I do not have that in front of me, so I cannot quote it, but I shall rely on my memory. I think that the Minister at the Dispatch Box at that time was my right hon. and now noble Friend Lord Waddington, and that in response to my hon. Friend's speech he made it clear that the TUPE regulations as such would apply to local authorities. My hon. Friend asked the specific question whether privatisation would be within the scope of the regulations, and my right hon. and noble Friend made it clear that it would. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness looks puzzled. I realise that this explodes his argument, but he can go to the Library and look up the words, by which, no doubt, he will be persuaded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East asked a number of questions, most of which did not fall within my area of responsibility.

Mr. George Foulkes: It has never stopped the Minister in the past.

Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but I become more conservative and more cautious as I grow older.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East expressed some serious concerns that I know are held outside and inside the House. I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment notes those points and that my hon. Friend receives a proper reply, especially about local authority competitive tendering and the case in Eastbourne.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about the way in which the law has been changed beyond what was originally intended by a series of judgments by the European Court. I agree that there has been a significant change in the meaning of the law. The Government believe that the acquired rights directive should be amended and we will continue to argue that, because it cannot be in the interest of value for money to restrain the ability to carry out competitive tendering fairly in the interests of the taxpayer.

Sir Teddy Taylor: If the Government are so anxious to fight the battle and to change the directive, why, when they had the infraction proceedings against them, did they cave in on three of the four demands without a battle? It seems astonishing that they had two years of secret discussions and caved in on three of the four demands. I cannot understand why they are fighting the fourth demand at all.

Mr. Forsyth: It is unfair to describe the Government's approach as having been to cave in without a battle. We must consider the infraction proceedings that are being


brought and, on the basis of legal advice, take a judgment on the best way forward. My hon. Friend is right to point out that, in one respect, we are continuing to fight our corner, but for obvious reasons I am not going to comment further.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East knows perfectly well that it is not within the power of the House to alter the terms of the acquired rights directive or to pass legislation in conflict with it, without incurring those same infraction proceedings. If he is anxious about the effect of that directive and the extension of the effect of TUPE, I can understand and sympathise, but the way forward is to seek to amend the directive. That is the Government's position, for which we will continue to fight.
My hon. Friend should be in no doubt about our commitment to achieving change or our understanding of the problems that are being caused across the length and breadth of Britain, of which, I am sure, he will continue to remind us.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I promise that I shall not interrupt my hon. Friend again—[Interruption.] I would not do this if it were not serious. On privatisation, is it the view of the Government that retrospective claims against local authorities will be met by local authorities, by the company or, in terms of Frankovitch, by the Government? Local authorities must know, because millions of pounds and lots of jobs with private firms are at stake. Surely the Minister should give some guidance on retrospective cases. Will councils, employers or the Government pay?

Mr. Forsyth: Ministers are expected to do many things, but they are not expected to give instant legal advice on cases where the facts are not before them. I cannot respond in the way that my hon. Friend would wish. The guidance that has been given by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made it clear that each case under TUPE must be considered on its own merits. I am sure that no one's case would be helped if Ministers or anyone else were to make casual off-the-cuff remarks about the implications of the legislation.
Lords amendment No. 32 was tabled and agreed on Report in another place and is concerned with an employee who does not wish to transfer to a new employer when the undertaking in which he works is transferred. It was tabled to make the position clear following speculation about the effects in the United Kingdom of what is known as the Katsikas case. I am amazed that the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), having had such a good Scottish education, is not a classical Greek scholar. Mr. Katsikas was a Greek chef in a German restaurant. He refused to continue as a chef when the restaurant was franchised.

Mr. Dobson: A chef in a Greek restaurant in Germany?

Mr. Forsyth: I am delighted that, on this occasion, the hon. Gentleman has a clear grasp of the detail.
The chef argued that he did not want to continue in the same job and the European Court considered whether he had a right not to transfer. The court held that he had that right. It has been suggested that, under existing United Kingdom law, the contract of an individual who refused to transfer to a new employer would remain in force with the old employer, whether the old employer wished that or not. If the old employer declined to maintain the contract

of employment, it was suggested that he would be found to have dismissed the employee, who would then be entitled to redundancy or compensation for unfair dismissal.
I am delighted that the Labour party obviously agrees with the Government's assessment that that would not be so, which is why it tabled its rather misguided amendment, which would seek to provide that those who do not wish to transfer to the same job should be paid redundancy money. I do not know whether there is some kind of sabotage programme against competitive tendering in the public sector or some hidden agenda, but I cannot believe that the Labour party tabled this rather absurd amendment on an idle afternoon. Labour Members would like public sector employees whose operations are privatised or transferred to be able to get redundancy payments for refusing to transfer and the following day be re-employed in the same post, with all their conditions maintained. That clearly would be an abuse. It would be indefensible and I urge the House to reject the Labour amendment for that reason.
I hasten to add that the Government do not share the view that the contract of an individual who refused to transfer would remain in force. The advice that we have received is that an individual who refused to have his contract of employment transferred to an employer in this way would have no continuing rights against the old employer.
Nevertheless, because we are a careful and cautious Government, it was apparent that the Katsikas judgment had given some scope for uncertainty about the position of individuals who make use of their right to object to the transfer of their employment contracts, and the Government amendment was made on Report in another place not to change the existing law but simply to put the position beyond doubt. Having listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, I am even more convinced that we were right to do so. Had the position not been placed beyond doubt, I am sure that, at a future date, some other unfortunate Minister would be berated for not having acted swiftly and decisively. I look forward to receiving my hon. Friend's support—along with that of the rest of my hon. Friends—in the Division Lobby. I trust that my hon. Friends will reject amendment (a) and vote for the Government amendment.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 306.

Division No. 300]
[8.39 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bermingham, Gerald


Adams, Mrs Irene
Berry, Dr. Roger


Ainger, Nick
Blair, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blunkett, David


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Boyce, Jimmy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boyes, Roland


Armstrong, Hilary
Bradley, Keith


Ashton, Joe
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Austin-Walker, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Barnes, Harry
Burden, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Byers, Stephen


Battle, John
Caborn, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Benton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis






Cann, Jamie
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Jowell, Tessa


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Keen, Alan


Clelland, David
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Khabra, Piara S.


Coffey, Ann
Kilfoyle, Peter


Connarty, Michael
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Leighton, Ron


Corbett, Robin
Lewis, Terry



Corbyn, Jeremy
Litherland, Robert


Cousins, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Cryer, Bob
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dafis, Cynog
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
McAllion, John


Davidson, Ian
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Macdonald, Calum


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McKelvey, William


Denham, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Dewar, Donald
McLeish, Henry


Dixon, Don
McMaster, Gordon


Dobson, Frank
McNamara, Kevin


Donohoe, Brian H.
McWilliam, John


Dowd, Jim
Madden, Max


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mahon, Alice


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mandelson, Peter


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Enright, Derek
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Etherington, Bill
Martlew, Eric


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Michael, Alun


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fisher, Mark
Milburn, Alan


Flynn, Paul
Miller, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Foulkes, George
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fraser, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Gapes, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Garrett, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


George, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gerrard, Neil
Mullin, Chris


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murphy, Paul


Godsiff, Roger
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Gordon, Mildred
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Gould, Bryan
O'Hara, Edward


Graham, Thomas
Olner, William


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Patchett, Terry


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Gunnell, John
Pope, Greg


Hain, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hall, Mike
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Henderson, Doug
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Heppell, John
Prescott, John


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoey, Kate
Purchase, Ken


Home Robertson, John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hood, Jimmy
Radice, Giles


Hoon, Geoffrey
Randall, Stuart


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Raynsford, Nick


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Reid, Dr John


Hoyle, Doug
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Rogers, Allan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Rooker, Jeff


Hutton, John
Rooney, Terry


Ingram, Adam
Rowlands, Ted


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Ruddock, Joan


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Sedgemore, Brian


Jamieson, David
Sheerman, Barry


Janner, Greville
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter





Short, Clare
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Simpson, Alan
Walley, Joan


Skinner, Dennis
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Welsh, Andrew


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Snape, Peter
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Soley, Clive
Wilson, Brian


Spearing, Nigel
Winnick, David


Spellar, John
Wise, Audrey


Steinberg, Gerry
Worthington, Tony



Stevenson, George
Wray, Jimmy


Strang, Dr. Gavin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)



Tipping, Paddy
Tellers for the Ayes: 


Turner, Dennis
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Vaz, Keith
Mr. Alan Meale.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Colvin, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Congdon, David


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Alton, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Couchman, James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Cran, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Aspinwall, Jack
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Beggs, Roy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Bendall, Vivian
Duncan, Alan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dunn, Bob


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Durant, Sir Anthony


Body, Sir Richard
Dykes, Hugh


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Eggar, Tim


Booth, Hartley
Elletson, Harold


Boswell, Tim
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bowis, John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Evennett, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Faber, David


Brazier, Julian
Fabricant, Michael


Bright, Graham
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Fishburn, Dudley


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Forman, Nigel


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Budgen, Nicholas
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Burns, Simon
Forth, Eric


Burt, Alistair
Foster, Don (Bath)


Butcher, John
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Butler, Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Butterfill, John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
French, Douglas


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gale, Roger


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gallie, Phil


Carrington, Matthew
Gardiner, Sir George


Carttiss, Michael
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Cash, William
Garnier, Edward


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gillan, Cheryl


Chapman, Sydney
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Churchill, Mr
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Clappison, James
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Gorst, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Coe, Sebastian
Greenway, John (Ryedale)






Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Moate, Sir Roger


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, Sir John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, Andrew
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hawksley, Warren
Norris, Steve


Hayes, Jerry
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heald, Oliver
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ottaway, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Paice, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pickles, Eric


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howell, Sir Ralph (North
Powell, William (Corby)


Norfolk)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Rendel, David


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunter, Andrew
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jenkin, Bernard
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Sackville, Tom


Key, Robert
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkwood, Archy
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knapman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sims, Roger


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Soames, Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Spencer, Sir Derek


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lidington, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lightbown, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Steen, Anthony


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stephen, Michael


Lynne, Ms Liz
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, David
Sumberg, David


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Madel, David
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mans, Keith
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thomason, Roy


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Milligan, Stephen
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain
Tredinnick, David





Trend, Michael
Whitney, Ray


Trimble, David
Whittingdale, John


Trotter, Neville
Widdecombe, Ann


Twinn, Dr Ian
Willetts, David


Tyler, Paul
Wilshire, David


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Viggers, Peter
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Wallace, James
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes: 


Watts, John
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Irvine Patrick.


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Question accordinly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 32 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 33, after clause 34, insert the following new clause—Agreements not to take proceedings before industrial tribunal—

(".—(1) In section 140 of the 1978 Act (restrictions on contracting out)—

(a) in subsection (2) (exceptions), after the paragraph (fa) inserted by paragraph 21 of Schedule 7 to this Act, there shall be inserted—

"(fb) to any agreement to refrain from instituting or continuing any proceedings specified in section 133(1) (except (c)) or 134(1) before an industrial tribunal if the conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are satisfied in relation to the agreement;";

(b) after subsection (2), there shall be inserted—

"(3) The conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are that—

(a) the agreement must be in writing;
(b) the agreement must relate to the particular complaint;
(c) the employee must have received independent legal advice from a qualified lawyer as to the terms and effect of the proposed agreement and in particular its effect on his ability to pursue his rights before an industrial tribunal;
(d) there must be in force, when the adviser gives the advice, a policy of insurance covering the risk of a claim by the employee in respect of loss arising in consequence of the advice;
(e) the agreement must identify the adviser; and
(f) the agreement must state that the conditions regulating compromise agreements under this Act are satisfied.

(4) In subsection (3)—

"independent", in relation to legal advice to the employee, means that it is given by a lawyer who is not acting in the matter for the employer or an associated employer; and
"qualified lawyer" means—


(a) as respects proceedings in England and Wales—

(i) a barrister, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or
(ii) a solicitor of the Supreme Court who holds a practising certificate;

(b) as respects proceedings in Scotland—

(i) an advocate, whether in practice as such or employed to give legal advice, or
(ii) a solicitor who holds a practising certificate.

(2) Schedule (Compromise contracts) to this Act shall have effect for making corresponding amendments in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Wages Act 1986 and the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 43, 61 and 62.

Miss Widdecombe: It gives me great pleasure to put to the House Lords amendment No. 33. My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) drew our attention in Committee to employers' concerns in this matter. Therefore, I hope that he, and indeed all hon. Members, will welcome the new provisions. I hope that after the previous unsuccessful skirmish there will be peace among the Opposition, at least in respect of this provision.
Amendments Nos. 33 and 61 offer a new, alternative means by which the parties to a particular dispute may reach a speedy and effective agreement between them which settles the dispute, without needing to refer it to an industrial tribunal. It will, however, be possible to do that only if a number of important conditions included for the express purpose of safeguarding the interests of the individual are met.
Under the proposed new provisions, if an agreement settling a dispute includes a term which precludes an individual's right to bring or to continue proceedings before an industrial tribunal in respect of that dispute, that term will be enforceable provided that all the relevant conditions are satisfied.
At present, under the 1978 Act, any term in an agreement which precludes the employee's right to bring proceedings before an industrial tribunal is generally invalid. It cannot prevent the employee from bringing a subsequent tribunal case, the main exception being where an Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service conciliation officer has taken action under section 133 or section 134 of the 1978 Act to assist the settlement. Similar provisions are contained in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and the Race Relations Act 1976, the Wages Act 1986 and the 1992 consolidation Act. Amendment No. 61 would amend those Acts in the same way as we propose to amend the 1978 Act.
If the parties to a dispute have already reached an agreement between themselves, ACAS takes the view that it has no statutory role to become involved. In such a case there is no dispute outstanding and therefore, by definition, nothing to conciliate. In this it is supported by legal advice. The practice of validating, or "rubber-stamping", privately reached agreements represented a considerable drain on ACAS resources until it ceased after receipt of that advice in 1990. In 1989, the last year before that service was withdrawn, ACAS dealt with well over 17,000 such cases, representing 36 per cent. of the total number of cases received.
Representations seeking a change to the current situation have been made by a number of employer associations. We have therefore consulted interested parties on the proposals set out in the amendments, and the response has revealed that they would indeed be welcomed.
The proposed means of settling disputes will, of course, be optional. No one can be forced into signing such an agreement; people will always be able to choose to take their claim to an industrial tribunal instead. However, it is

obvious that any legislation which allows individuals to agree not to bring or to continue with tribunal proceedings, even if doing so is optional, must be very tightly drawn for the protection of the individual. The amendments therefore include a number of important conditions which must be met if the term of the agreement which precludes the employee's right subsequently to bring a tribunal claim is to be binding. That is to ensure that no one is misled or coerced.
First, the new provisions can be used only in respect of a dispute which has already arisen between the parties and is outstanding. Concerns have reached us from some quarters that the new provisions could be used to encourage individuals to agree not to bring any tribunal claims should disputes arise in the future. I can reassure hon. Members that it would not be possible to use the provisions to do that. It is a condition that the agreement should relate to a specific dispute that has already arisen, and, if that condition is not met, the term of the agreement which precludes a tribunal claim will not be enforceable.
Secondly, the amendments require that the individual must have received advice from a qualified solicitor or barrister or, in Scotland, an advocate satisfying the conditions set out in the amendments.
9 pm
The adviser, who must be named in the agreement, must also be independent of the other party or parties to the dispute. The adviser must advise the individual about the terms and effect of the agreement, especially its effect on his or her right to pursue a tribunal claim with regard to the dispute to be settled by the agreement. The advice must be covered by insurance so that, in the event of the individual suffering loss as a result of negligent advice, he or she will be adequately protected. Finally, the agreement must be in writing, and must state that the relevant conditions are satisfied.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that those conditions will adequately safeguard the interests of individuals, while at the same time offering a simple and effective means of settling individual disputes without adding unnecessarily to the already considerable work load of our industrial tribunals.
Amendment No. 62 will amend schedule 13 of the 1978 Act, which deals with the rules governing the calculation of an individual's period of continuous employment. At present, schedule 13 allows for regulations to be made to preserve continuity of employment when an individual is reinstated or re-engaged as a consequence of the presentation of a claim of unfair dismissal under the 1978 Act, and when he is re-employed as a consequence of an agreement reached with the help of an ACAS conciliation officer when he claims action has been taken where he could present a claim of unfair dismissal.
The amendment extends the order-making power so. that regulations can be made to ensure that, when individuals are re-employed as a consequence of an agreement reached under the proposed new provisions in the 1978 Act for settling a complaint relating to unfair dismissal, or the new provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Race Relations Act 1976, continuity of employment will be preserved in exactly the same way.
It also extends the order-making power to cover re-employment as a consequence of the presentation of a complaint of dismissal under the Sex Discrimination Act or the Race Relations Act, and re-employment after


conciliation by an ACAS officer with regard to such a claim, but before such a claim has been presented. That closes a lacuna in the existing provisions.
I hope, therefore, to have the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House in moving that we agree with the House of Lords amendments.

Mr. Spencer Batiste: As my hon. Friend the Minister said, this amendment arises out of a clause that I submitted to the Committee to address what is and has been since 1970—and, indeed, for a period before that—a real problem in industrial relations. It cannot be right that, when two sides to a dispute voluntarily reach an acceptable agreement, there is no mechanism for making that agreement enforceable.
I accept that there were some defects in the clause that
I submitted and I withdrew it on the undertaking that the Government would produce a clause in another place. The Government have produced such a clause and I wholeheartedly endorse it. I congratulate them on striking a sensible balance between the need to provide a relatively simple and easy method of resolving disputes and the need to protect the rights of individuals.
When I first read this clause, I thought that there might be a slight problem in that it would require employers to rely on a declaration by a solicitor or by a barrister representing the employee that various conditions had been met which they might be unable to verify. However, after examining it in practical terms, the likelihood of that presenting a problem would be limited. The professional bodies of both barristers and solicitors would deal heavily with any member of the profession who signed a false declaration.
On that basis, there should be no obstacle to agreeing to the clause. It will be widely welcomed by industry at large as a way of bringing peace and certainty to an area of industrial relations which has caused significant problems since ACAS withdrew from performing this service.

Mr. Galbraith: I assure the Under-Secretary of State for Employment that hostilities on this Bill have probably come to an end. I cannot absolutely rule out a knee in the groin as we depart from the battlefield, but we can probably say that there is peace in our time.
This clause has resulted from the efforts of the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Batiste) and he must be congratulated on that. The Government have introduced a reasonable and simple clause that has the important aspect of guaranteeing the rights of individuals. I am impressed by the conditions that are laid out—the employee must have received independent legal advice from a qualified lawyer and the agreement must be in writing. Those matters are of supreme importance.
The hon. Gentleman is correct not to worry about the question of false declarations. I understand that the legal profession is bound by an ethical code, as are most professions. One of the great sins of any profession is to make a false declaration. In the medical profession, doctors do not get struck off for killing anyone. But if they indulge in alcohol, adultery, advertising or false declaration, they can lose their livelihood. I presume that the position in the legal profession is similar. Alcohol is probably excluded from the list that applies to the legal profession.
The clause is simple and straightforward and it deals with an important issue. I am grateful to the Government for introducing it in such a splendid manner. It is such a good clause that I almost thought that I must have written it.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 34—Restriction of publicity in cases involving sexual misconduct: industrial tribunals—

(".—(1) Schedule 9 to the 1978 Art (regulations for industrial tribunals) shall be amended by the insertion in paragraph 1 of the following.

(2) After sub-paragraph (5) there shall be inserted—

"(5A) The regulations may include provision—

(a) for cases involving allegations of the commission of sexual offences, for securing that the registration or other making available of documents or decisions shall he so effected as to prevent the identification of any person affected by, or making, the allegation;
(b) for cases involving allegations of sexual misconduct, enabling an industrial tribunal, on the application of any party to proceedings before it or of its own motion, to make a restricted reporting order having effect (if not revoked earlier) until the promulgation of the decision of the tribunal.

In this sub-paragraph—

"identifying matter", in relation to a person, means any matter likely to lead members of the public to identify him as a person affected by, or as the person making, the allegation;

"restricted reporting order" means an order prohibiting the publication in Great Britain of identifying matter in a written publication available to the public or its inclusion in a relevant programme for reception in Great Britain;

"sexual misconduct" means the commission of a sexual offence, sexual harassment or other adverse conduct (of whatever nature) related to sex, and conduct is related to sex whether the relationship with sex lies in the character of the conduct or in its having reference to the sex or sexual orientation of the person at whom the conduct is directed;

"sexual offence" means any offence to which section 141A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975, section 4 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 or the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 applies (offences under the Sexual Offences Act 1956, the Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 1976 and certain other enactments);

and "written publication" and "relevant programme" have the same meaning as in that Act of 1992."

(3) In sub-paragraph (6), after the word "send" there shall be inserted the words "(subject to any regulations under sub-paragraph (5A)(a))".

(4) After sub-paragraph (7) there shall be inserted—

"(8) If any identifying matter is published or included in a relevant programme in contravention of a restricted reporting order the following persons shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale—

(a) in the case of publication in a newspaper or periodical, any proprietor, any editor and any publisher of the newspaper or periodical;
(b) in the case of publication in any other form, the person publishing the matter; and
(c) in the case of matter included in a relevant. Programme—

(i) any body corporate engaged in providing the service in which the programme is included; and


(ii) any person having functions in relation to the programme corresponding to those of an editor of a newspaper.

Expressions used in this sub-paragraph and in subparagraph (5A) above have the same meaning in this sub-paragraph as in that sub-paragraph.

(9) Where a person is charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (8) it shall be a defence to prove that at the time of the alleged offence he was not aware, and neither suspected nor had reason to suspect, that the publication or programme in question was of, or (as the case may be) included, the matter in question.

(10) Where an offence under sub-paragraph (8) committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of—

(a) a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or
(b) a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

(11) In relation to a body corporate whose affairs are managed by its members "director", in sub-paragraph (10), means a member of the body corporate."")

Miss Widdecombe: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 35 and 44.

Miss Widdecombe: Amendment No. 34 gives industrial tribunals discretionary powers to protect people from intrusive or offensive media reports when they are involved in cases which include allegations of sexual misconduct. The definition of sexual misconduct covers sexual offences, sexual harassment and other adverse conduct based on sex, or relating to the sex or sexual orientation of the person at whom the conduct is directed.
The tribunals themselves sought such powers, and when the Department of Employment consulted interested organisations earlier this year, it was clear that there would be widespread support for such a move. The responses show that some potential applicants are deterred from bringing tribunal cases involving allegations of sexual harassment for fear of hostile and intrusive publicity. Many people find the experience of bringing a complaint which involves such allegations deeply distressing, and it is wrong that their distress should be enhanced by their fears of being identified against their will in salacious and incomplete reports of the case. Therefore, I think that hon. Members will agree that it is in the public interest that discretionary reporting restrictions should be available in such cases.
The amendment falls into two halves. New paragraph 4A(a) covers the small number of cases which involve allegations constituting an indecent assault or more serious sexual offence. It gives industrial tribunals powers to remove permanently from decisions and any other documents available to the public any information which would identify any person making or affected by the allegations. Those powers are largely needed to avoid the risk of the tribunals themselves committing a technical breach of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992. That Act, which applies in England and Wales, makes it a criminal offence to publish information which would identify the victim of such an offence without their consent for the rest of their life.
New paragraph 4A(b) contains the substantive powers. It covers the potentially larger group of cases which involve allegations of sexual harassment or other sexual

misconduct, as defined in the new clause. In cases which involve such allegations the amendment gives industrial tribunals discretionary powers to make restricted reporting orders. Such an order, once made, will prevent any reports of the case published or broadcast in Great Britain from including information which would identify anyone making or affected by those allegations. The order will not be made automatically, but only where the tribunal sees fit. It will lapse on promulgation of the tribunal's decision unless it is revoked earlier by the tribunal. Transgression of the order will be a criminal offence punishable by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, currently £5,000.
Amendment No. 35 gives the Employment Appeal Tribunal discretionary powers equivalent to those given to the industrial tribunals by amendment No. 34. The powers to be given to the EAT cover appeals in cases which involve allegations of sexual misconduct, where the proceedings are appeals against an industrial tribunal's decision or refusal to make a restricted reporting order, or against any interlocutory decision in a case where such an order had been made.
In appeals in cases which involve allegations of an indecent assault or other more serious sexual offence, the amendment gives the EAT powers to remove information which might identify any person making or affected by those allegations permanently from decisions and any other documents which are available to the public. As in the case of amendment No. 34, those powers are largely needed to allow the EAT to avoid the risk of committing a technical breach of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992.
I hope that hon. Members from both sides of the House will join in the Government's strong condemnation of sexual harassment. The purpose of the amendments is to protect individuals in cases involving such allegations from offensive and intrusive reporting and to encourage potential applicants who might otherwise be deterred by the fear of such publicity to pursue their complaints.

Ms Quin: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and wish her well. I hope that, in the course of her tenure, she will turn out to be a champion of women's rights at work. This amendment helps women at work, although I regret that so much else in the Bill does not.
The Opposition welcome the amendment, which is very much in line with suggestions that we have made in the past. We also welcome the strengthening of its wording at the instigation of Baroness Lockwood. We are glad that the Government took her additional words into account.
We also welcome the fact that there has been consultation and that the Government have listened to the various organisations that have made representations to' them. We would encourage such listening.
We are fully aware that, in some cases of sexual harassment, harm may be caused to an innocent party by intrusive publicity. That is why we welcome the amendment, which allows reporting restrictions. I have one or two questions about it, however. We are somewhat concerned about how widely the new provisions may be interpreted. Of course, the Minister said that the reporting restrictions will not be granted automatically—that is important. Still, we must strike a balance between the need


to ensure that such cases are understood by the general public and are not pursued behind closed doors, and the need to protect innocent parties.
It can often be in the interests of the accused to avoid publicity altogether. We do not want to make that too easy. Although there have been many cases of which the reporting has been most intrusive, there have also been cases where reporting has raised awareness of the problem among employers, employees and the public. Some such cases have contributed to the problem being taken seriously, and we should all be pleased about that.
I know that some people say that all publicity is good publicity. I do not share that view; nor do I share the view that all publicity is bad publicity. We should be aware of the gains that publicity can produce. If reporting the results of sexual harassment cases is restricted, it may become more difficult to persuade employers that the subject requires proper complaints procedures and preventive measures. When a complaint of sexual harassment has been upheld by a tribunal, press reports can be an important means of emphasising employers' responsibility to take action to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace. Although the names of the harasser and the victim are often not necessary, some reporting of the name of the employer and the workplace can be an effective method of alerting other employers to their responsibilities under the law.
I should like the Minister to comment in more detail on these observations and to undertake to monitor how the provision works in practice, so that, if there is a danger that it is being interpreted too widely, the matter will be reviewed in future.

Miss Widdecombe: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall reply briefly to the points that have been made.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms Quin) for her broadly supportive approach to the amendment. The Government are seeking to strike a balance. The hon. Lady made the valid point that publicity arising from sexual harassment cases draws the public's attention to the problem, deters employers from tolerating such activity and encourages them to ensure that they do not themselves become the subjects of such publicity. On the other hand, there will be no publicity at all if people do not bring complaints.
We have to strike a balance between encouraging public examination of the problem and deterring people from taking action as a result of what may have been extremely distressing circumstances. When people are deterred, the perpetrator is not called to account and is left free to carry on with his conduct. I believe that that balance is ensured, first, by the discretionary nature of the power—I repeat that it is certainly not automatic—and, secondly, by the fact that the order will lapse on promulgation of the decision, at which point the facts of the case and of the determination will be made known.
As in the case of the employment tribunals, in whose work we are interested although they are independent, we shall keep a close eye on the progress and effects of the legislation. I can certainly give the hon. Lady an undertaking that if this were ever interpreted as being automatic, we should want to put an end to such an interpretation.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 35, 36, 65, 79 and 37 agreed to.

Clause 37

REQUIREMENT TO INFORM EMPLOYER OF PREGNANCY ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 38, in page 54, line 26, at end insert:

"; and in doing so the Secretary of State shall have regard to the requirements of disabled persons."

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Michael Forsyth.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 40.

Mr. Galbraith: You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a brief moment ago we had a declaration of peace in our time and the cessation of hostilities. I was unable to guarantee departure from the field without putting a knee in the groin. However, I have had to reconsider my position, as a knee in the groin would be unfair to the Minister, who knows that I am only too willing to be fair to him. I shall therefore limit my activity to a shout of "Yah-boo" as we close hostilities.
My concern is not with the efforts that the Minister has made on our behalf and on behalf of the disabled. A fairly strong amendment would impose on Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise some sort of duty to take account of the needs of the disabled. The Minister thought originally that he had agreement with the Scottish Office, but this was more difficult to get through its system than he thought it would be. When he was a Minister in the Scottish Office, he was able to push through virtually anything at will. This is an indication of what happens when a Minister is moved to a Department dealing with matters on a United Kingdom basis.
Thus, this is a somewhat weakened amendment. I do not blame the Minister, and I know that he will not take my remarks personally, as he never takes anything personally. This provision makes reference to such times as the Secretary of State may require—not will require: there is no absolute statutory obligation—provision, if any, to be made. There may or may not be provisions for disabled people. It depends on what takes the Secretary of State's fancy because he has no obligation to include such provisions. That is probably the best compromise that the Minister could reach, but I am disappointed by this weak amendment.
The Minister knows the background to our amendment, so I shall not go through it. It relates to Lennox Castle hospital in my constituency for people with learning and physical disabilities. It had a useful garden project that was funded in part by the local enterprise company, but financial provision was withdrawn. That seems to be happening all over the country. When money in the enterprise companies becomes tight, provision of training for the disabled is the first item to be sacrificed.
Our amendment sought to redress the balance and to place on the Government a statutory obligation to consider the training rights of such people. The Minister agreed with the thrust of our amendment and tried his best. Unfortunately, he has not been completely successful.
There is another reason for a stronger amendment. At Question Time, the Minister and I had a discussion across the Dispatch Box about the laws relating to the employment of the disabled, and especially the 1944 legislation, in cases where the 20 per cent. quota is not enforced. The Minister has said that the policy is one of virtual non-enforcement.
It is difficult to get employers to fulfil their obligations. The Minister said that the Government try to cajole and convince them without having recourse to the law. It makes matters more difficult when the local training and enterprise companies do not have an obligation and can withdraw from looking after the unemployed. For those two reasons we sought a stronger amendment. The Minister has done his best and we are grateful for the amendment, but we wish that it was stronger than "may or may not" and "what, if any". We should be much happier with a statutory obligation to provide training for the disabled and others.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 39 to 79 agreed to.

House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. David Davis): I beg to move,
That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification act 1975 be amended as follows:

PART II OF SCHEDULE 1

Additional entries

1. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:

The Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances established under section 140(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

The Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel.

The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland.

The Forestry Commissioners.

A Meat Hygiene Appeals Tribunal constituted under regulation 15 of the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976, regulation 15 of the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Scotland) Regulations 1976, or regulation 6 of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.

The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Northern Ireland.

The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board.

Entries omitted

2. The following entries shall be omitted:

The Attendance Allowance Board for Northern Ireland.
Food from Britain.
The Highlands and Islands Development Board.
The National Bus Company.
The National Development Team for People with a Mental Handicap.
Northern Ireland Electricity.

Other amendments

3.—(1) In the entry beginning "The Parole Board constituted", the words from "constituted" onwards shall be omitted.

(2) In the entry beginning "The Parole Board for Scotland", the words from "constituted" onwards shall be omitted.

(3) For the entry beginning "The Planning Appeals Commission" there shall be substituted the following entry:

The Planning Appeals Commission constituted under Article 110 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

PART III OF SCHEDULE 1

Additional entries

4. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:

Certification Officer for Northern Ireland appointed under Article 69 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.
Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Commonwealth Institute.
Chairman of the Chief Executives' Forum in Northern Ireland.
Full-time Chairman of Child Support Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.
Chairman of the Consumer Committee for Electricity appointed under Article 7 of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.
Chairman of Food from Britain.
Chairman or any member, not being also an employee, of the Health Education Board for Scotland.
Chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Chairman of any of the National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting constituted under section 5 of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979.
Chairman of the Northern Ireland Higher Education




Council.
Chairman of, or secretary to, the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee.
Chairman of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council.
Chairman of the Training and Employment Agency Advisory Board in Northern Ireland.
Chief Adjudication Officer appointed under section 39 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
Chief Adjudication Officer appointed for Northern Ireland under section 37 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
Chief Child Support Officer appointed under section 13(3) of the Child Support Act 1991.
Chief Child Support Officer appointed under Article 15(3) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland.
District judge appointed under section 6 of the County Courts Act 1984.
Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland.
Independent Commissioner, or Deputy Commissioner, for the Holding Centres in Northern Ireland.
Member of the Board of the Industrial Research and Technology Unit in Northern Ireland.
Member of a panel of chairmen for Child Support Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland appointed under paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. 
Member of a panel of chairmen of industrial tribunals established under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.
Member of a panel appointed under section 6 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 of persons to act as chairmen of Child Support Appeal Tribunals.
Member of the staff of the State Pathology Service for Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.
Pensions Ombudsman.
Secretary of the Medical Research Council.
Social fund Commissioner in Northern Ireland.

Entries ominted

5. The following entries shall be omitted:—

Chairman of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
Chairman or other full-time member of the Forestry Commission.
Chairman of the London and Metropolitan Government Staff Commission.
Chairman of the Northern Ireland Training Authority.
The entry beginning "A member of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions".
President, or member of a panel of chairmen, of industrial tribunals established under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.
Registrar or Assistant Registrar appointed under section 6 or section 7 of the County Courts Act 1984.

Other amendments

6.—(1) In the entry "Chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council", after "Chairman" there shall be inserted ", or Director General and Deputy Chairman,".

(2) In the entry "Chairman of the Business Technician Education Council", for "Technician Education" there shall be substituted "Technology".

(3) In the entry "Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority", the words "or Vice-Chairman" shall be omitted.

(4) In the entry "Chairman of the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland", after "Chairman" there shall be inserted "or Chief Executive".

(5) In the entry "A full-time chairman of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for

Northern Ireland", for "and Medical Appeal Tribunals" there shall be substituted ", Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals".

(6) In the entry beginning "Any member of the Audit Commission", after "Local Authorities" there shall be inserted "and the National Health Service".

(7) In the entry beginning "Officer of the Supreme Court", for "registrar, or assistant registrar," there shall be substituted "judge".

(8) In the entry "President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland", for "and Medical Appeal Tribunals" there shall be substituted ", Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals".

The motion seeks the approval of the House to the amendment by Order in Council of schedule 1 to the 1975 Act. As the House is aware, the Act is concerned with the maintenance of the independence of the House and the safeguarding of hon. Members from undue influence by the Executive through the exercise of patronage. Schedule 1 lists those offices whose holders are thereby disqualified from membership of the House.

It has been the usual practice for any legislation establishing new offices or winding up existing ones to amend schedule 1 accordingly. The 1975 Act is therefore reprinted from time to time in accordance with the provisions of the Act, to incorporate such amendments. The last reprint was made on 1 March 1992; a further reprint will be ordered after the new order has been made.

In addition, from time to time it is necessary to use the procedure outlined in section 5(1) of the Act to bring schedule I up to date by Order in Council. That section provides for the schedule to be amended following a resolution by the House, by adding offices which have been created by administrative action, by amending or correcting existing entries and by deleting offices that no longer exist or in relation to which a statutory disqualification is no longer appropriate. The procedure has been followed on nine previous occasions: the first was in 1961, and the last in December 1990.

Copies of the explanatory note describing the amendments in detail have been available in the Vote Office since 11 June. Perhaps I should add that Ministers have been individually responsible for the details of the additional entries and deletions which cover offices within their areas of responsibility. They have based their judgments on the same general principles and criteria which have been followed in the past and which are covered in the explanatory note. Of the 61 amendments, 37 are new entries, 13 are deletions and 11 are amendments to existing entries. Approximately 381 office holders will be brought into the scope of schedule I. Up to 58 others will no longer be disqualified: that includes offices that have been abolished: There is therefore a net increase of 323 office holders disqualified. Of the 381 added to the schedule, up to 225 are part-time chairmen of child support appeal tribunals.

We also propose that the "de minimis" level—that is, the level below which paid offices in the gift of the Crown or Ministers do not normally attract disqualification—should be raised to £8,000. The "de minimis" limit, of course, has no effect on the level of remuneration received by office holders; its purpose is merely to prevent trivial disqualification. The 1990 figure of £7,000 has been uprated approximately in line with movements in average earnings, and remains within the range of a quarter to a third of Members' salaries.

As we are following a well-established procedure, I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Mark Fisher: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I welcome him to his new post, and to his first chance to speak following his time in the Whips Office,.
The details of the amendments and additions to schedule 1 to the 1975 Act are not in themselves greatly contentious, but I welcome this opportunity—the first since 1990—to consider the scope and purpose of parliamentary disqualification. The principle of disqualification, the criteria on which it should apply and who, in practice, should be disqualified are issues that go to the heart of the powers and independence of the House. It is proper that certain groups should be disqualified from membership. Broadly, those groups fall into two categories—those who should be disqualified because of lack of competence and those involved in a clash of interests that requires a separation of powers.
About six further categories are included in the first category: examples are treason, imprisonment for more than one year in Britain—and, strangely, in the Republic of Ireland—and corrupt practices at elections. The Mental Health Act 1983 refers to a statutory procedure for vacating the seat of a sitting Member of unsound mind. I do not know whether the House would agree on exactly what constitutes "unsound mind", and on how subjective that definition is—we could debate that for some time.
Curiously, people under the age of 21 are also banned from the House. That would have denied it the services of Charles James Fox and Lord John Russell, and it would probably have been a weaker House for that. It is interesting to note that Sir Edward Coke, the great jurist, wrote in 1623 that several "infants" sat in the House in his day
by connivancy—but if questioned would be put out"—rather like dogs, I assume.
The Minister did not touch on the chief aspect of lack of competence, which is bankruptcy. That is of particular interest to the House at a time when, under the present Government, the number of personal bankruptcies has risen.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that he is straying beyond the remit of what is before us this evening.

Mr. Fisher: Whether the amendments should include bankrupts, and what the implications of that are, is important and I seek an assurance from the Minister on it.
Bankruptcies have risen from 7,728 in 1988 to 32,106 in 1992. A great many people have been disqualified by the Government's economic incompetence. The House would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that the Government have no plans to protect Lloyd's names and, by doing so, to protect the 47 Tory Members who apparently, according to press reports, are at risk of losing their seats and being disqualified for reasons of bankruptcy.
An assurance from the Minister would relieve a great deal of press speculation. [Interruption.] I will certainly

give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) if he wishes to intervene. If he does not, I am sure that he will agree with a former Member of the House, Mr. Thomas Benyon, who is a director of the Society of Names. Last week, Mr. Benyon said that this
is a time bomb adding uncertainty to the ability of the Major Government to keep its majority intact for the next two or three years.
As the House is debating disqualification for the first time, these matters may be of considerable interest to 47 hon. Members. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South is not taking it more seriously. No one wants to see hon. Members being disqualified.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What?

Mr. Fisher: We should like to see them beaten at the ballot box, but not necessarily disqualified.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. In the short time that I have been in the Chair, it appears to me that the type of disqualification that the hon. Member is talking about is not set out in the motion as a disqualification.

Mr. Fisher: That is true, but as we are debating the 1975 Act and amendments to it for the first time in three years, and it is an important current issue, an assurance from the Minister that Lloyd's names will not be handled separately would be an important assurance. I will willingly give way to the Minister if he wants to put the record straight.

Mr. Skinner: My hon. Friend said that the last thing he wanted to see was Tory Members being disqualified. I will tell him straight. If we see 47 Tory Members up to their necks in debt and being made bankrupt, I hope that he will join me in the Lobby to make sure they are kicked out.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now return to the motion.

Mr. Fisher: My hon. Friend did not quite catch my drift. I would prefer to see them beaten at the ballot box where they deserve to be beaten, and I am sure that we agree about that.
I turn to the second category which is absolutely central to the amendments—those areas in which there is a clash of interests. We all know about the armed forces, the police and the judicial offices, but the categories added to schedule 1 by today's amendments all involve quangos. As the Minister said, the Government are adding 381 new posts to schedule 1. Those quangos were set up by the Government, as indeed were the previous 2,600 additions to the Act between 1987 and 1990. There are not many growth industries in Britain under this Government, but quangos are certainly one.
It is proper that people who head and work for quangos should be disqualified because of the potential clash of interests. They are, in effect, Government employees, and, like civil servants, they ought to be disqualified. The Government are the quango kings. Inevitably, the amendments will be repeated in the few years left to the Government because they are so intent on creating quangos-40,000 posts in 1,412 quangos, which spend an amazing one fifth of all Government expenditure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) has pointed out that in Scotland one third of all Government expenditure is directed through quangos. As the Government are using quangos


as an instrument of government, it is absolutely right that those who do the Government's work through those quangos should be disqualified from being Members of the House as if they were civil servants. It is interesting to note that the Government, by bringing forward the motion, accept the fact that those people are arms of Government and civil servants in all but name and conditions of work.
As the Government seem to imply by the motion, finance is the key. The quangos are public bodies spending public money and it is right that there should be a separation of powers to prevent a clash of interests. The Government do not always seem to understand that there might be such a clash of interests.
Baroness Denton, referring to the 804 appointments at the Department of Trade and Industry, said, "I cannot remember knowingly appointing a Labour supporter." The Government rigorously control the political complexion of the quangos—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Baroness Denton said that she never knowingly appointed a Labour appointee and if Conservative Members are proud of that and believe that that is the right way in which to handle quango appointments, let them intervene in the debate. The Minister's words are on the record and she has never taken them back.

Mr. Graham Riddick: To put the record straight, the point that my noble Friend was making was that she does not consider the party political affiliations of people whom she appoints. She appoints people on merit. That is the important point. It has nothing to do with party politics.

Mr. Fisher: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is being deliberately humorous or disingenuous, but he knows perfectly well that Baroness Denton meant something totally different. She said that she was proud that she was appointing only non-Labour people.

Mr. Bob Cryer: If I were my hon. Friend, I would not take any notice of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick), who is on record as saying that the BBC radio programme "Start the Week" is communist propaganda. If the hon. Gentleman is prepared to take that view, he would be prepared to believe that Baroness Denton tried to appoint people on a neutral basis.

Mr. Fisher: If the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) will not accept the word of a Minister, perhaps he will accept the words of the Financial Times, which did a survey showing that, of the 10 largest quangos and the 30 largest quangos in the national health service, not one had a chairperson who was either a Liberal Democrat or a Labour supporter, but eight were paid-up members of the Conservative party. It is clear that the Government have a clear and consistent policy and that is why it is right that, because of the clash of interests, those people should be disqualifed from membership of the House.
What the Government do not seem to understand is the difference between their interests and the interests of Parliament or the interests of the Tory party and the interests of the Government. That they cannot make that distinction is to the Government's discredit. They need the separation of powers implicit in the Act, because for the Government it is a seamless robe.
I hope that the new Minister will bring a fresh eye and some intelligence to his responsibilities. I hope that he will

bring a new look to his job—I am being nice to him again —and consider the role of disqualification and the clash of interests involved. He can make a start by reducing the number of quangos, by giving us a categorical assurance now that he will have no amnesty for Lloyd's names on bankruptcy and then by working with the Government to try to change the economic policies that are causing such ruin and shoving up the number of bankruptcies across the country to more than 32,000 in the past year.
The Opposition will not oppose the motion, but we shall keep a watchful eye on the Government's quango mania. We shall await the real disqualification act which will be the general election, when the Government will find that they are disqualified from office by the British people.

Mr. Bob Cryer: rose—

Dr. Robert Spink: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me how the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) can possibly comment, when he was not in the Chamber for the Minister's opening remarks?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That matter is not a point of order for me. Mr. Cryer.

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister spoke so rapidly that I was unable to get to the Chamber in time to hear his maiden speech as a representative of the right-wing extremists in the Whips Office now in the Government. I am sorry that I missed it —all two minutes of it.
When this motion appeared in the Whip, all the reporters and Lobby correspondents sought it out immediately, to see whether it contained other than routine changes to the 1975 Act of the kind that are made from time to time. They wanted to make sure that the Government were not trying to get off the hook the 47 Tory Members of Parliament who are up to their necks in debt at Lloyd's. [Interruption.] In fact, the motion does not say that. However, that matter is of considerable concern, particularly to those of us who were here in 1981, when Tory after Tory said that Lloyd's should have all the self-regulation that it wanted because it was such a wonderful—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are straying down that road again, and I have already drawn that to the attention of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher). I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will return to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Cryer: -I shall try my very best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but Conservative Members were shouting from a sedentary position in a most unruly and undignified fashion, which brings disgrace to this great mother of Parliaments. I do not know how they can do it. It is quite appalling. I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, against that pin-stripe mob that is trying to break up democracy.
The proposed alteration to schedule 1 to the 1975 Act reflects the Government's penchant for appointing people instead of extending democratic principles. If the Government were concerned about some of those institutions, they could extend local authority democracy, by allowing some functions—if not all—to be undertaken


in association with local authorities. The Government prefer to appoint people, which is a system of political patronage.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) knows that that is true. He might protest when we say that such appointments are based on Conservative political attitudes, but the Government's record of the past 14 years is one of dedication to the application of political prejudice in every possible walk of life. It has been a corrosive influence. The Government have used patronage—of which this measure is an example—and extended the powers and expenditure of quangos. That was suggested in a recent issue of the Financial Times.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) mentioned, one fifth of Government expenditure is now made not through Parliament but through the allocation of moneys to quangos. It is clear from the explanatory note provided with the measure that some people are now paid honorariums, whereas before they did the job for nothing. The payment of those sums of money brings them within the scope of the legislation. That shows the extent of the patronage that the Government are doling out.
Labour will examine some of those appointments, to see whether they cannot be placed on a more democratic footing, instead of the terrible business of the Government handing out appointments on the basis that those appointed support the party in power. That has been a canker in our body politic. After the next general election, we shall take a good look at that situation, to see whether we can improve matters.
We can expect more such amendments, because of the Government's shifting sands of patronage. Many quango chairmen, chairwomen and members receive salaries that are way beyond the scope of ordinary people—they are very well paid. It is proof of the power of patronage that it buys people's support, even if there is doubt about that support in the beginning.
I have already mentioned Baroness Thatcher. It is worth remembering that she coined a phrase that echoed throughout her years as Prime Minister. She asked about any candidate, "Is he one of us?" and used that as the political test of reliability. If a Labour Government had applied the same test, they would have been hounded by the press, but because the vast majority of the press is on the side of the Conservative party, it pays little or no heed to the political corruption about which the Minister is now smiling.
The Minister is a former Whip and therefore in an ideal position to hand out patronage because, as a Whip, he has been bullying and bribing Tory Members for the past few years. He would tell them that if they were not present, they would not be allowed to go on free trips or become members of Select Committees. He knows all about patronage, which is very much part of the legislation. We shall examine the legislation again. We are unhappy about it as it stands, but this has been a useful debate to highlight the Tory party's patronage system.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I, too, missed the beginning of the debate, but I have picked it up as I went along.
I have been scanning the list of new quangos which have been included or excluded, as the case may be. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is right. The Government have been establishing more quangos, but I cannot see listed the Norman Lamont legal aid defence fund, which should be there.
The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer was able to get money indirectly from Asil Nadir, but also from the taxpayer—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the motion. Will he please confine his remarks to the motion?

Mr. Skinner: We are talking about whether people should be disqualified because they have jobs that are in some way connected with money paid by the Government, which means by the taxpayer. The ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer received money from the taxpayer, which means that for a short time he also had an office of profit under the Crown—he was being paid his salary but also received £4,000-odd from the taxpayer. That was Government money and he should therefore have been included in the list. That is my point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is very interesting, but it has nothing to do with the list.

Mr. Skinner: It has nothing to do with the present list. What I am trying to say is that people are disqualified for getting money from Government bodies, quangos or whatever one wants to call them.
I cite an example. When the 1974–79 Labour Government were elected, one of the first things they did was to hold a special mini-debate—you were probably here at the time, Mr. Deputy Speaker—about someone who had been elected to Parliament although he had an office of profit under the Crown. It had to be a Liberal, a Dr. Winstanley. He had been receiving money from the taxpayer and, therefore, through the Government. The Government suddenly realised that Dr. Winstanley should be barred as a Member of Parliament.
I think that it was Lord Glenamara, Ted Short at the time, who presented to the House a motion similar to that presented this evening by the Minister. I came into the Chamber and wondered what was happening. The Labour Government did not need the Liberals' support at the time as they still had a majority—we still had Stonehouse plus two. I found that the Labour Leader of the House was making arrangements to allow that Liberal whippersnapper off the hook, although he had broken the law.
The amount of money was small, but the Liberal was on a medical panel. and attended various panels and tribunals during the year. It happened on only a few occasions, but he was receiving a sum of money and that disqualified him. The Leader of the House	he did not get my support; I think that I was the only one who refused—got the House to agree to retrospective legislation—[HON. MEMBERS: "Terrible."]—for a Liberal!

Mr. Riddick: Which way did the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) vote?

Mr. Skinner: I do not know what he was doing at the time. He may have voted in favour, because he finished up as a Minister. But I am not sure which way he voted, because he was not a Minister at the time; that came later.
My hon. Friend made sure that the wheels of industry turned—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about the IMF?"] It had nothing to do with the IMF.
I was trying to illustrate the fact that the amount of money involved in the earlier case was small and that a very fine line was drawn in the case involving the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. That case should be examined, as, indeed, should any case involving a Minister or anybody else who gets money from the Government and thereby has an office of profit under the Crown. That is the real reason why I am taking part in the debate.
The case that I mentioned also shows that Labour did not go in for the policy of looking after Labour people. They were not very good at doing that. That is sad when we think about it. Now we have experienced 14 years of Tory Government and they have put hard-line Tories in everywhere—health spivs and all the rest. But when Labour were in power they used to say, "We shall have one for their side and one for the other." What a carry-on. If I had been in power that would not have happened. We would have had a few more socialists on some of those bodies.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Gentleman. te11 us whom the Labour Government appointed to be Her Majesty's ambassador in Washington and what relation he was of the Prime Minister of the day?

Mr. Skinner: It is well known that that was Peter Jay —[HON. MEMBERS: "Who was?"]—Jim Callaghan's son-in-law. [ Laughter.] I never considered him a socialist.

Mr. Riddick: Jim Callaghan?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is all very entertaining, but what has it got to do with the motion? Let us get back to the motion.

Mr. Skinner: I am asked all those questions arid I am expected to answer them, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I was talking about the fine line in the case of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. There is another fine line to he drawn and that is why I believe the schedule should be examined afresh. We should consider the retrospective nature of what happens when former Ministers of the Crown and Members of the Cabinet become directors of privatised companies; in some cases they have taken the legislation to privatise those companies through the House of Commons. I am talking about water, electricity and so on. Nineteen former Tory Cabinet Ministers got 59 directorships between them, some of which were connected with the industries whose privatisation they had taken through the House of Commons. Those posts should be added to the schedule.

Mr. David Davis: With the leave of the House, I thank hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, (Mr. Fisher), who have congratulated me on my appointment. I especially thank the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) for his compliments. I also wish to thank the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who I read in the weekend press, has been nominated for a ballroom dancing honour. I hope that he does well.
It is difficult to answer some of the questions that have been asked and still stay within order, but I will do my best. I shall start by referring to a previous debate. When

I asked for some previous editions of Hansard, one of my officials wrote that, over the years, the debates have been less than colourful. We have changed that tonight. In 1983, Mr. Charles Morris said:
a somewhat salutary thought for parliamentarians to note and remember, that, in a job where some might think madness and bankruptcy are distinct possibilities, perhaps occupational hazards, to come here with either involves an infringement of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975."— [Official Report, 12 April 1983; Vol. 40, c. 766.]
I think that he was right.
I say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central that there is nothing in the amendment to alter the disqualification for bankruptcy. That disqualification comes under section 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986. There is nothing in the motion that changes that, nor am I aware of any intention to change it.
If the amendment introduced disqualification for the bankruptcy of ideas, the Opposition Benches would be rather vacant. In fact, they look rather vacant now.

Mr. Fisher: The record will show that all that the Minister said about the Lloyd's bankruptcy disqualification is that he had no knowledge of it, or that there was no intention. Could he give the House a categorical assurance that his Government will not change either the Insolvency Act or the 1975 Act to give any accommodation that might include Tory Members of Parliament made bankrupt by their dealings with the Lloyd's gambling den?

Mr. Davis: I do not think that people change laws on that basis anyway. The limit that I can give on anything is my knowledge of it, and I have given that.
It was suggested that over the years we have increased the number of quangos. In fact, in 1979 there were 2,167 quangos, whereas now there are 1,412. That puts it on a rather more even basis.

Mr. Cryer: Since the Minister has the figures, presumably in preparation for the debate, will he say how much money was administered by quangos in 1979 compared with today?

Mr. Davis: I do not have those figures. To take up a point that the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bolsover pursued, the purpose of this Act is to avoid even the appearance of any influence on Members of the House. It was disgraceful to suggest that Baroness Denton said that she appointed on a political basis. The important word in that statement was "knowingly". Appointments are made on merit and Ministers are not told of the applicant's political affiliation. It is not done on a "One for you, one for us" basis, which appears to have operated in the past. That was somewhat of an own goal.
The suggestion that the need for the Act is a characteristic of a Conservative Government misses one point. This is a 1975 Act. I cannot remember which party was in power then, but I do not think it was the Conservative party; it must have been the Labour party. That rather puts paid to that point, too. The whole point is to prevent there being even the appearance of what Opposition Members have asserted. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 be amended as follows:—

PART II OF SCHEDULE 1

Additional entries

1. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

The Advisory Committee on Hazardous Substances established under section 140(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The Citizen's Charter Advisory Panel.
The Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board for Northern Ireland.
The Forestry Commissioners.
A Meat Hygiene Appeals Tribunal constituted under regulation 15 of the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) Regulations 1976, regulation 15 of the Poultry Meat (Hygiene) (Scotland) Regulations 1976, or regulation 6 of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1992.
The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Northern Ireland.
The United Kingdom Ecolabelling Board.

Entries omitted

2. The following entries shall be omitted:—

The Attendance Allowance Board for Northern Ireland.
Food from Britain
The Highlands and Islands Development Board.
The National Bus Company.
The National Development Team for People with a Mental Handicap.
Northern Ireland Electricity.

Other amendments

3.—(1) In the entry beginning "The Parole Board constituted", the words from "constituted" onwards shall be omitted.

(2) In the entry beginning "The Parole Board for Scotland", the words from "constituted" onwards shall be omitted.

(3) For the entry beginning "The Planning Appeals Commission" there shall be substituted the following entry:—

The Planning Appeals Commission constituted under Article 110 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.

PART III OF SCHEDULE 1

Additional entries

4. The following entries shall be inserted at the appropriate places:—

Certification Officer for Northern Ireland appointed under Article 69 of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.
Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Commonwealth Institute.
Chairman of the Chief Executives' Forum in Northern Ireland.
Full-time Chairman of Child Support Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland.
Chairman of the Consumer Committee for Electricity appointed under Article 7 of the Electricity (Northern Ireland) Order 1992.
Chairman of Food from Britain.
Chairman or any member, not being also an employee, of the Health Education Board for Scotland.
Chairman of the Joint Nature Conservation Committee.
Chairman of any of the National Boards for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting constituted under section 5 of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1979.
Chairman of the Northern Ireland Higher Education Council.
Chairman of, or secretary to, the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee.
Chairman of the Northern Ireland Rural Development Council.
Chairman of the Training and Employment Agency Advisory Board in Northern Ireland.
Chief Adjudication Officer appointed under section 39 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.

Chief Adjudication Officer appointed for Northern Ireland under section 37 of the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.
Chief Child Support Officer appointed under section 13(3) of the Child Support Act 1991.
Chief Child Support Officer appointed under Article 15(3) of the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
Director General of Electricity Supply for Northern Ireland.
District judge appointed under section 6 of the County Courts Act 1984.
Independent Assessor of Military Complaints Procedures in Northern Ireland.
Independent Commissioner, or Deputy Commissioner, for the Holding Centres in Northern Ireland.
Member of the Board of the Industrial Research and Technology Unit in Northern Ireland.
Member of a panel of chairmen for Child Support Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland appointed under paragraph 3(2)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991.
Member of a panel of chairmen of industrial tribunals established under Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.
Member of a panel appointed under section 6 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 of persons to act as chairmen of Child Support Appeal Tribunals.
Member of the staff of the State Pathology Service for Northern Ireland.
Northern Ireland Commissioner for the Rights of Trade Union Members.
Pensions Ombudsman.
Secretary of the Medical Research Council.
Social fund Commissioner in Northern Ireland.

Entries omitted

5. The following entries shall be omitted:—

Chairman of the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting.
Chairman or other full-time member of the Forestry Commission.
Chairman of the London and Metropolitan Government Staff Commission.
Chairman of the Northern Ireland Training Authority. The entry beginning "A member of the Interim Advisory Committee on School Teachers' Pay and Conditions".
President, or member of a panel of chairmen, of industrial tribunals established under. Article 30 of the Industrial Training (Northern Ireland) Order 1984.
Registrar or Assistant Registrar appointed under section 6 or section 7 of the County Courts Act 1984.

Other amendments

6.-(1) In the entry "Chairman of the Agricultural and Food Research Council", after "Chairman" there shall be inserted ", or Director General and Deputy Chairman,".

(2) In the entry "Chairman of the Business Technician Education Council", for "Technician Education" there shall be substituted "Technology".

(3) In the entry "Chairman or Vice-Chairman of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority", the words "or Vice-Chairman" shall be omitted.

(4) In the entry "Chairman of the Local Government Staff Commission for Northern Ireland", after "Chairman" there shall be inserted "or Chief Executive".

(5) In the entry "A full-time chairman of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland", for "and Medical Appeal Tribunals" there shall be substituted ", Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals".

(6) In the entry beginning "Any member of the Audit Commission", after "Local Authorities" there shall be inserted "and the National Health Service".

(7) In the entry beginning "Officer of the Supreme Court", for "registrar, or assistant registrar," there shall be substituted "judge".

(8) In the entry "President of Social Security Appeal Tribunals and Medical Appeal Tribunals for Northern Ireland", for "and Medical Appeal Tribunals" there shall be substituted, " Medical Appeal Tribunals and Disability Appeal Tribunals".

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

CUSTOMS UNION (SAN MARINO)

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Agreement on Customs Union and Co-operation between the European Economic Community and the Republic of San Marino) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 13th May. be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101( 5 ) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

CRIMINAL LAW

That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (Designated Countries and Territories) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

That the draft Criminal Justice (International Cooperation) Act 1990, (Enforcement of Overseas Forfeiture Orders) (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Question agreed to.

Thorpe Marsh Power Station

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

10 pm

Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the matter of the closure of Thorpe Marsh power station before the House. The closure was announced on 8 June, and is a disaster for my constituency and for many of my constituents who work at the plant.
The blame for the closure must be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Government. I hope that the Government will get their act together and get an energy policy before it is too late for the many hundreds of people in my constituency who rely on the power industry for their jobs, features and livelihoods.
The decision to close Thorpe Marsh proves the folly of the Government's energy policy. It will lead directly to more than 200 job losses in my constituency and in the Doncaster area, and ultimately to many more job losses. The 1,000 MW plant is just another casualty of a policy which, through a mixture of incompetence and malice, has rigged the market against coal. As a result, the workers of Thorpe March now have to suffer.
The coal-fired plant has proved itself time and again. In May 1993, National Power News boasted proudly that Thorpe Marsh had set thermal efficiency records for the past two years running. The reason for the success of the plant lies largely with the excellent industrial relations and team approach. Management and unions have worked side by side and given their absolute best to the plant and to National Power.
For the workers, the closure came out of the blue. In the past three years, National Power has invested £40 million in new equipment at the plant, and the future of Thorpe Marsh seemed secure. Yet we are now told that there is no option but closure. The workers at Thorpe Marsh have done all they can to keep the plant successful; they even accepted 120 redundancies in March. Now the remaining 232 jobs are also to go. That is a profound disappointment to all those involved, and a shock to the local community.
Thorpe Marsh workers will feel the most immediate effects of the loss of the plant, but many other groups of workers in Doncaster will also be affected. Bentley and Hatfield pits both lie in my constituency. Both are currently undergoing so-called market testing, and both rely on Thorpe Marsh to buy one third of the coal that they produce. Last year, Bentley supplied 270,000 tonnes to Thorpe Marsh, and Hatfield supplied 400,000 tonnes. On Friday 11 June, the last deliveries of coal to Thorpe Marsh from those two pits were made. The plant will rely on stockpiles between now and the closure date next March. That has massive implications for both Bentley and Hatfield. With one third of their market gone, their chances of surviving beyond market testing have been seriously undermined.
Where will the two pits find new markets of that size now? The closure is a huge blow to all the men at the two pits, who had at least been offered some chance of a future but who have suffered a serious setback with the announcement of the closure of Thorpe Marsh. With an unemployment rate of 13·6 per cent., Doncaster is way


above the national average, and further rises caused by the closure of Thorpe Marsh will make matters even more difficult.
However, should the closure of Thorpe Marsh also force local pits to close, the long-term unemployment effects will decimate many towns and villages in the area. White collar jobs, along with mining jobs, will go. Local businesses, especially small businesses, and those involved in mining supplies will be badly hit.
It has been estimated that the possible effects of the closures could add as much as 6 per cent. to the present unemployment total. The implications go far beyond the tragedy of Thorpe Marsh. That is why I call on the Government to help. It is a Government-created problem, and the Government must solve it. I do not want to see any more job losses and economic difficulties in Doncaster. I hope that the Government are as concerned as I am about the economic impact of their energy policies on areas such as Doncaster, and that they are finally willing to redress the imbalance in our energy markets.
The Government's energy policy, or lack of one, is at the heart of the debate. Privatisation of the electricity industry sounded the death knell of the coal industry and, with it, coal-fired electricity generation. The Government have stood idly by while regional electricity companies have invested in gas-fired plant when ample capacity already existed in the generating industry. Regional electricity companies want their own generating stations so that they can produce and sell their electricity, at whatever price they want, to themselves. Either the Government do not understand what that will mean for consumers and the size of their electricity bills, or they do not care.
The electricity consumer is playing for the dash for gas and for the building of the expensive new plant that is needed before one watt of electricity is produced. The costs of that plant outweigh any cost benefits of an alternative fuel, which will actually add to rather than reduce consumers' bills. It is only when there is a shortage of capacity that building such an amount of plant can be justified on cost grounds, yet the Government have let the dash for gas continue.
The Government have persisted in the fiction that burning gas is an efficient way of producing electricity, and an efficient use of the nation's energy resources. However, gas burned in power stations gives only 52 per cent. efficiency, and that is at maximum, whereas gas burned in industrial and domestic use is more than 90 per cent. efficient.
That is a dire waste of our scarce energy resources, especially in the light of the alternative of coal fuel, which has fewer alternative uses in the industry and in homes and which has served Britain so well in the past as an efficient generator of electricity. Instead of encouraging the most efficient use of an increasingly scarce energy resource, the Government have allowed coal-fired stations to be closed and have let regional electricity companies continue their profiteering. They have stood by and allowed consumers to be exploited once again.
The consumer is being exploited even more blatantly by the fossil fuel levy, which is subsidising a nuclear industry that has crippling plant, safety and decommissioning costs. With 10 per cent. of all fuel bills going to support the

nuclear industry, the consumer is being forced to give a massive subsidy to the industry, and almost 20 per cent. of Britain's fuel is being heavily subsidised. Nuclear Electric received subsidy of more than £1 billion last year, and that subsidy came straight from the pockets of consumers, rich and poor alike. That industry cannot compete with other sources of fuel because of high costs, yet its markets are guaranteed.
Regional electricity companies are forced to buy the output of the nuclear industry, and the consumer is forced to pay the costs of the consequent inefficiency. The amount of electricity that is being sold in that way is on the increase —from 47 to 57 TWh per annum over the past three years. Nuclear power output continues to rise and consumers, are paying more for their electricity to subsidise that expensive white elephant.
The folly of the policy is demonstrated by the case of Trawsfynydd power station. That nuclear power station has not produced enough electricity in the past two years to light a 60 watt bulb, yet it remains open. It has been staffed by 560 people for all that time, costing taxpayers and consumers a small fortune. That should be compared to the model of the Thorpe Marsh power station. It is a comparatively efficient generator, has low costs and has produced good results. For their efforts, the workers and management are now rewarded with redundancies and closure.
The experience with the interconnector has proved that the Government's energy policy is a farce. Only this Government would be barmy enough to allow electricity to be imported when we have surplus capacity. The Government allowed the interconnector to become a one-way traffic, making Electricité de France more like simply another power station, rather than an emergency supply.
The Government's perversion of the energy market has created such waste and such costs for consumers. The nature of the market desperately needs to be tackled, and the interests of consumers and workers protected. It is that wasteful policy that has caused the closure of Thorpe Marsh. It is simply not true to say that coal has no market or that coal-generated electricity is not efficient. Coal-fired power stations are simply not being allowed to compete with gas and nuclear fuels. We have already lost 6,000 MW of coal-fired generating capacity and we look set to lose another 3,000, only to see it replaced by gas powered plant.
A new gas-fired station is being built only 20 miles down the road from Thorpe Marsh at Keadby near Scunthorpe and will have a 750 MW generating capacity. Where is the justification for closing one efficient plant and replacing it with a new plant, incurring all the costs of building and commissioning? How can such a wasteful duplication be based on sound economic arguments? The point is that there is no justification.
The Government's policy lacks any overview or coherence. It has pitted one energy source against another, encouraged duplication and waste, endorsed high costs and high prices for the consumer and penalised efficient coal-fired generation. In so doing, the Government are jeopardising many thousands of jobs in power generation, coal mining and related industries in the Doncaster area.
Have the Government not noticed the destructive effects of their energy policy? The Minister must admit that, through incompetence or design, his Government have set the energy market against the coal industry and all


those who work in it. The closure of Thorpe Marsh will have disastrous consequences for the economy in my constituency and in many other localities.
Thorpe Marsh power station is an effective plant, with a dedicated staff who have found a recipe for success in teamwork and hard work. They represent more than simply a branch of a company—they are an important part of the local community, and have given a great deal back to Doncaster in the past few years. Thorpe Marsh should be given a chance. It should be given back the chances that the Government took away when they wrecked Britain's energy market and condemned the coal industry.
Thorpe Marsh must be saved. The only thing that will save it is intervention from the Minister. Over the past 14 years, the Government have stacked the cards against the coal industry and we are all paying the price for that incompetence. It is time for the Government to tackle the problems that they have created. I call on them to intervene to correct the appalling imbalance that they have created in the energy market, and save Thorpe Marsh power station from closure.

Sir Harold Walker: I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster; North (Mr. Hughes) who has outlined a tragic case. I attended the official opening of Thorpe Marsh power station. little thinking that I would have the sad experience of bemoaning the consequences of its closure in the House. The Minister will recall that I recently led a deputation with my hon. Friend about the appalling consequences for the region of the pit closure programme and the serious economic difficulties that we faced. I little thought that we would have to face an additional hammer blow.
It will not affect merely the power station's employees, many of whom are my constituents, but will have a knock-on effect, further exacerbating the problems caused by the closures of pits and railways. Those matters are interconnected, as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend depend on the three industries, which together face a crisis.
As my hon. Friend said, we are not facing a natural catastrophe, such as the floods in north Wales or fire. The disaster was created by Government policies. The Government must provide the answers for the thousands of people in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend who are suffering as a consequence of those policies. They face misery and hardship and, unless the Government intervene, there is little likelihood of those people obtaining new employment and a new future.
I want the Government today to say not only what they will do about the consequences of the closure of Thorpe Marsh power station, but what they will do to help my constituency and that of my hon. Friend which will be, to put it mildly, blighted by the Government's policies.

The Minister for Energy (Mr. Tim Eggar): I am delighted to see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Chair yet again on a coal-related matter.
I understand the concern felt about this subject. I well remember the deputation led by the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Sir H. Walker), accompanied by the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes). We

discussed in detail the widespread concern then felt in Doncaster about the impending closure of the two pits. I felt that that was a useful meeting, at which we had a frank exchange of views. I hope that those present felt that I was able to provide reassurances about our plans for development area status for the region and the issue of an enterprise zone in south Yorkshire.
I know that the hon. Member for Doncaster, North made a case for locating the enterprise zone in somewhere other than the Dearne valley. He did not mention it in his speech tonight, but I know that he feels that the announcement about Thorpe Marsh—and its possible implications for other pits in the region—bears on the issues that he and others were making at the previous meeting. I assure him that we shall bear in mind those representations.
I also recognise that it is a particularly sad moment for the employees at Thorpe Marsh. I do not think that there is any doubt that the station has performed well, and the employees have done what they can to improve the plant's efficiency. The closure announcement is linked to two factors: the capacity of the market to absorb the station's production and the fact that the station is old.
The right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central said that he was at its opening; he did not refer—perhaps understandably—to the fact that that was more than 30 years ago. It is commonly recognised that the station is one of the older stations still in operation. Drax, which is perhaps the best example of a modern station, has a generating capacity no less than four times the size of Thorpe Marsh's.
When Thorpe Marsh was opened, it represented a new type of technology and a new level of thermal efficiency, but everyone recognises that it has been overtaken by developments since then. It is also widely recognised that, without extensive retrofitting, coal stations have a finite life.
I do not wish to raise false hopes or lay myself open to the charge of misrepresentation, but I should point out that the closure announcement by National Power is not necessarily the end of the story for Thorpe Marsh. The Director General of Electricity Supply has made it clear that he wants greater competition in electricity generation, and he has drawn particular attention to the possibilities for competition in coal-fired generation. Professor Littlechild has also made it clear that the generators could and should do more to make redundant generating plant available for sale to third parties.
One advantage of the early announcement of this closure is that it will at the very least provide enough time for real negotiations with potential purchasers. I do not want to raise hopes, however, because I genuinely do not know whether potential purchasers will emerge. I do know that there are companies looking for investment opportunities in coal-fired plant in this country, and that the director general is keen that such opportunities should genuinely exist. I also know that both National Power and PowerGen are aware of that. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear this in mind, although I do not want to mislead him or his constituents about the possibility of further life for Thorpe Marsh.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: Can the Minister confirm a story carried on a local television news programme in Yorkshire this evening to the effect that two private generators are


interested in purchasing the Thorpe Marsh power station? Does he have any knowledge of that; if so, will he elaborate?

Mr. Eggar: I am afraid that I do not know what was on the programme—I did not see it. I am not aware of any such interest in Thorpe Marsh. I am aware that a small number of companies have expressed interest, in principle, in entering into serious negotiations about the possibility of purchasing older, coal-fired plant. I understand that some companies wish to examine the possibility of retrofitting such plant, which I have been told can be done cost-effectively, and which has been done in the United States to considerable effect. Operating costs have been reduced, and the operating efficiency of older plant has been increased.
I do not think it fair to the employees of Thorpe Marsh or to the people of Doncaster to raise hopes which I am not sure can be fulfilled, but it is right to point out that such an option exists.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the role of nuclear power and of the new gas-fired stations. There was reference to the inefficiency of producing electricity from gas. The new gas-fired generating plant has a thermal efficiency of above 50 per cent., and that figure is rising as each new piece of plant comes on stream. Currently the most efficient coal-fired plant has an efficiency level of below 40 per cent., so there is a considerable gap. Gas has become competitive as a result of technological breakthrough in terms of the development of the combined cycle.
I—like many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, I suspect—believe that there may very well be a similar technological breakthrough in the development of coal-fired technology, which will improve thermal efficiency, as well as the environmental operating factors. Of course, in considering the environmental aspects of coal-fired plant, one must always bear in mind the fact that, by definition, it will be virtually impossible to remove all carbon emissions. As far ahead as, with existing technology, one can reasonably predict, this will always be an environmental disadvantage for coal as against other generating methods, including gas and nuclear generation.
We have been told that nuclear is clean. There is no doubt that, in terms of emissions, it is considerably cleaner than both coal and gas. However, it would be inappropriate at this time to rejig the debate that we had at the time leading up to the coal review and the matters that were investigated by the Select Committee. It is fair to point out, however, that the Select Committee, as well as the Government, recognised that there was a role for nuclear power and that the avoidable costs were low. The Select Committee did not argue for an end to the building of gas-fired plant.
The hon. Gentleman made some remarks about Trawsfynydd. That nuclear station is not operating, as it has been necessary to develop a safety case for the inspectorate. The result of the inspection is awaited. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about Bentley and Hatfield. I realise why he and his constituents are worried. I do not know exactly where the coal flows will go. That is a matter for British Coal and for the generators. However, I strongly believe that there is a market for deep-mined British coal. That is why the Government have made a subsidy available and why we are committed to the market testing period to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised this matter on the Adjournment. I understand the immediate response to the announcement about the closure of Thorpe Marsh. Everybody realises that we have a stock of older coal-fired plant, which is not competitive and is bound to face replacement. It is not competitive with nuclear or gas plant or, critically, with the most modern coal-fired plant.
It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene on an issue of this kind. It is clear that National Power, the owners, believe that there is no market for the product of the plant and that keeping it open would undermine the viability of other generating plants, which they regard as more productive and more competitive. It is possible that other entities will be interested in the plant, and I know that the director general will want to pursue that possibility.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this very important issue. I have taken careful note of all the points that he has made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.